Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS (PENALTY FARES) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for further consideration, as amended, read.

To be further considered on Monday 13 November.

LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)

BROMLEY LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL (CRYSTAL PALACE) BILL (By Order)

Orders for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Monday 13 November.

BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Wednesday 15 November.

VALE OF GLAMORGAN (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Monday 13 November.

CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Wednesday 15 November.

CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE BILL [Lords]

Motion made,
That the Promoters of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first and shall be ordered to be read a second time;

That the Petitions against the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

To be considered on Tuesday 14 November at Seven o'clock.

BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (No. 2) BILL

Motion made,
That the Promoters of the Birmingham City Council (No. 2) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the present session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

To be considered on Monday 13 November at Seven o'clock.

PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] [SUSPENSION]

Motion made,
That so much of the Lords Messages [2nd November, 7th November and 8th November] as relates to the River Tees Barrage and Crossing Bill [Lords], the Happisburgh Lighthouse Bill [Lords], the Great Yarmouth Port Authority Bill [Lords], the Southampton Rapid Transit Bill [Lords], the Heathrow Express Railway Bill [Lords], the London Local Authorities (No. 2) Bill [Lords], and the Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) Bill [Lords] be now considered.
That this House doth concur with the Lords in their Resolution.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

To be considered this day at Seven o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Food Bill

Mr. Riddick: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received on the forthcoming food Bill; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Gummer): I have received a wide range of representations. I intend to introduce new legislation as soon as the parliamentary timetable permits.

Mr. Riddick: Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the forthcoming food Bill will not impose unnecessary bureaucracy and regulation on Britain's very successful food industry? Is he aware, for example, that many small, traditional family bakers could be driven out of business by the proposal to refrigerate or to freeze their products, particularly when those products are sold on the same day as they are produced? Will he do everything in his power to ensure that the small corner bread shop is protected?

Mr. Gummer: The particular point to which my hon. Friend refers comes from a different source, but,in general, it is vital for the success of the British food industry that British consumers should feel that food is entirely safe and that we are acting on their side when we try to ensure that any gaps in the existing law are filled. I put food safety first and I hope that we will be able to achieve that end with the least amount of bureaucracy.

Mr. Vaz: Will the Minister ensure that the new Bill contains clear regulations concerning the importation and sale of irradiated food? Does he share my concern about reports that irradiated food, such as prawns and shell fish, has found its way into this country, been sold to companies, processed into canned food and sold in our shops? Will he ensure that the new Bill contains clauses to prevent such activities?

Mr. Gummer: If what the hon. Gentleman says were true I would be extremely concerned. I heard this allegation, yet again, but I was disappointed to find that those who made it had not bothered to put in front of me the evidence that they claimed to have. I asked immediately for that evidence and three days later, it arrived. I am having it examined urgently. The hon. Gentleman is right. I believe that consumers should choose whether they want irradiated food. All irradiated food should be properly labelled; then it will be for the consumer to decide.

Saccharin

Mr. Shersby: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further consideration he has given to the case for reducing the level of saccharin intake on health grounds and its implications for his decision to abolish the minimum sugar standard for soft drinks: and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Maclean): I have

asked my independent advisory committee for advice on the level of saccharin in certain foods. The revised soft drinks regulations retain, for the present, their statutory maximum level on the use of saccharin.

Mr. Shersby: In view of the urgent advice which my hon. Friend seeks from his expert committees about the need to reduce the level of saccharin in the diet, is it not unwise at the same time to abolish the minimum sugar standard of soft drinks and thus open the way to the use of more artificial sweeteners, instead of safe and nutritious natural sweeteners?

Mr. Maclean: Just because we are removing the minimum sugar standard in drinks does not mean that there will be an increase in artificial sweeteners. We are maintaining the present regulation which insists on not more than a certain amount of saccharin in all soft drinks and food.

Mr. Spearing: Does the Minister agree that if the level of saccharin were reduced to protect the health of the people of the United Kingdom, that would give an opportunity for the greater use of cane sugar from the Commonwealth and help Commonwealth producers?

Mr. Maclean: It may and it may not. Most soft drinks already contain much more than the minimum level of sugar. Even if it was found that there were risks connected with saccharin and people used less saccharin in soft drinks, an increase in the amount of sugar in soft drinks would not automatically follow.

Sir William Clark: Is my hon. Friend aware that if the abolition takes place, a large tonnage of sugar will be lost to the market? Has the Ministry made any estimate of what that loss will be? My information is that it will be about 150,000 tonnes a year. If that is so, what effect will it have on the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries—the Commonwealth countries which, under the Lomé convention, have quotas of cane sugar coming into this country?

Mr. Maclean: I repeat the point: the abolition of the minimum requirement of sugar will not result in a substantial reduction in sugar in soft drinks. Many soft drinks, by their nature, require sugar for their flavour and texture. We believe that labelling is the correct requirement and if people want drinks with less sugar, those drinks should be labelled so that people can make their own decisions. The consumers' safety is paramount.

Fisheries Policy

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next expects to attend a meeting of the Council of Ministers to discuss fisheries policy.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Curry): I shall attend the next meeting of the Council of Fisheries Ministers on 27 November.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: In a recent Adjournment debate the Minister gave a commitment that there would be an announcement on a decommissioning scheme this side of Christmas. Is the Ministry in a position to make such an announcement?

Mr. Curry: I see no reason to change my position: we should settle this by Christmas. However, this will not be on the agenda of the Council of Ministers, and I do not intend to raise it with the Council.

Mr. Robert Hicks: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is considerable unease about the implications of the recent statement by the European Court, and the subsequent action taken, on the availability of fish off the south-west coast in the English channel? Will he assure the House that during the next negotiations he will seek an enhanced total allowable catch to take account of the additional fishing vessels in our waters?

Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend raises two points: the first relates to the so-called quota hoppers. We are confident that we still have a substantial provision, which is supported by the court, to defend ourselves against the great bulk of those hoppers. Whether I press for additional amounts of fish depends on the scientific evidence available to us. I cannot give an undertaking that we shall do so if the evidence from the scientists shows that it would be imprudent. I cannot invent fish, and there are not enough of them about at the moment.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The Minister discusses quotas and the total allowable catch with the scientists. Will he conduct an urgent investigation into the quality of scientific advice? It cannot be right that one year we are given one total allowable catch, and the next year it is cut by a third. We do not know where we are. Will the Minister make provision for an increase in the allowable catch, set up a far-reaching inquiry and ensure that the scientific evidence is right so that we can achieve stability in the industry?

Mr. Curry: I am always willing to review the methodology of the collection of information on total allowable catches. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is done by an international body. What I am not willing to do, once that evidence is presented, is to apply some sort of political coefficient to it just because that is convenient for political reasons. We depend on scientific advice reached objectively. I shall review it, but I will not invent fish.

Geese and Ducks (Defeathering)

Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the latest situation as regards the EEC proposal to ban the use of mineral hydrocarbon wax for defeathering of geese and ducks.

Mr. Gummer: The European Community has made no proposal to ban the use of mineral hydrocarbon wax for this purpose.

Mr. Coombs: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great concern in the British poultry industry about a proposed Government regulation to ban the use of mineral hydrocarbon wax in the defeathering process, as part of a more general ban on mineral hydrocarbon oils? Is he further aware that the food science laboratory says that such waxes and oils have no effect on human health and that the previous Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food concurred with that view? Even if the ban were imposed, it would not apply to our European competitors; as a result it would hand a

large part of the British poultry market to those competitors and there would be no improvement in the health of the people eating the birds.

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that my hon. Friend would want me to reassert that the primary purpose of Government legislation in this area is the safety of the public. That must come first. I am looking at the representations from the industry, and I realise its concern.
It would, of course, also be ridiculous to put ourselves into a position in which people could not buy British products but could buy continental products which had been treated in exactly the same way as those that we had prohibited in Britain. This matter must primarily be sorted out in the European Community and I am considering the best way of doing that.

Mr. Ashton: If the Minister cannot tell us about geese and ducks, can he tell us about defeathering Prime Ministers? Is there to be a stalking horse or not?

Mr. Gummer: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will come often to agriculture questions, because the industry that we are discussing and the consumers who use its products are the most important in Britain. We want to ensure that the industry is healthy and we do not like it being used for cheap political jibes.

Food Labelling

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussion he has had since taking office with retailers on the subject of food labelling.

Mr. Maclean: I have met a number of retailers individually and collectively and have discussed with them a wide range of labelling matters.

Mr. Marshall: Apart from these discussions, has my hon. Friend discussed with the industry the need for proper refrigeration and storage? Does he agree that if all retailers were as good as Marks and Spencer, Tesco and Sainsbury there would be no problem of food poisoning?

Mr. Maclean: I have visited some large superstores especially to look at refrigeration and I am well aware of the high standards in the vast majority of superstores, markets and shops in this country. Nevertheless, my colleagues in the Department of Health are examining measures to improve our refrigeration and storage yet further and we are co-operating fully with them.

Mr. Martyn Jones: If the Minister persists in allowing irradiation, will he make sure that irradiated food is labelled as such and does not have a stupid label stuck on it whose meaning would not be obvious to the consumer?

Mr. Maclean: It is very simple. I repeat the promise made from this Dispatch Box on many occasions: irradiated food will be properly labelled with the words "irradiated" or "subjected to ionising radiation". A logo is not in itself sufficient.

Mr. John Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that if his welcome food labelling initiative is to be successful, the labels on food packages must be honest? What plans does he have to ensure that the origin of food products is clearly marked and that labels marked "British beef', "British lamb" or "British eggs" mean what they say?

Mr. Maclean: I am delighted to tell my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Minister made that very point in an important speech yesterday. I agree with my right hon. and hon. Friends that labelling must be honest. For example, Britain has set up UKROFS—the United Kingdom register of organic food standards—to ensure that the important organic food sector is not damaged by anyone who puts on food an organic label which it might not deserve. We are trying to introduce that system across the EEC because it is best to have EEC-wide organic food standards.

Mr. Ron Davies: If the Minister understands the importance of information in facilitating consumer choice, why on earth does he not pursue a more vigorous policy? Will he acknowledge that the scheme that he presently favours is only voluntary and will not provide essential information such as the amount of sugar in a product or allow a consumer to differentiate between saturated and unsaturated fats? They are major deficiencies. Will the Minister reconsider the scheme for which he is arguing in the Council and recognise that, if nutrition labelling is to be effective, it must be not only comprehensive but mandatory?

Mr. Maclean: I reject the hon. Gentleman's point. Britain is in the lead in nutritional labelling in the EEC. The hon. Gentleman must face the political reality that not many other EEC countries agree with the Government's labelling initiative on nutritional standards. As there is no prospect of a compulsory scheme being accepted at this stage, I see no point in bashing my head against a brick wall on this point. However, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are requirements in the directive. We can have mandatory labelling for certain nutrients if we perceive a particular risk. The British Government are insisting on a review of the voluntary proposals in three years' time to see whether they are working adequately.

Dairy Sector

Mr. Knox: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he is next due to meet the president of the National Farmers Union to discuss the dairy sector.

Mr. Curry: My right hon. Friend and I regularly meet the president of the National Farmers Union to discuss a range of issues affecting the industry.

Mr. Knox: When my hon. Friend next meets the president, will he bear in mind the importance of maintaining milk prices to ensure the continuing viability of dairy farms, particularly small dairy farms, which are essential if the fabric of the countryside as we know it is to be retained?

Mr. Curry: I agree totally with my hon. Friend. Dairying is essential to the countryside. Real incomes in the dairy sector increased by 16 per cent. last year because quotas brought stability and profitability, and we aim to keep it that way.

Mr. Cryer: When the Minister next meets the president of the National Farmers Union to discuss the dairy sector, will he take into account the fact that there is a large butter surplus—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, there is not."] It is part of the dairy sector. When the Minister distributes the large

dairy surplus in the form of butter, will he make sure that there is no confusion and disruption in Bradford, for example, because there are too few outlets for free EEC butter? Instead of obstructing distribution and refusing to allow new outlets, will the Minister adopt a different policy and thereby avoid the confusion, frustration and bad tempers that arise because of the long queues that are formed as a result of the Government's policies?

Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman is somewhat out of date. There is no longer a butter surplus. The justification for the scheme to which he refers is no longer relevant: it was to dispose of a surplus that no longer exists. If I had my way, I would not continue it at all.

Mr. Andy Stewart: My hon. Friend knows well that we cannot discuss dairy farming in isolation from other sectors. For example, wheat prices are 40 per cent. below what they were four years ago and bread prices are up by 20 per cent. As three companies mill 95 per cent. of Britain's flour, is it not time that we referred them to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission?

Mr. Curry: I agree with my hon. Friend that the arable sector has been under considerable pressure. That is why we are seeking to assist it in the European negotiations. We have always been hostile to the co-responsibility levy, which is such a burden upon the arable sector. I am sure that we shall continue to seek higher profitability in this important sector of our countryside.

Dr. David Clark: Will the Minister explain to the House why, having been informed by Dutch agriculture authorities on 1 November of the presence of lead-contaminated animal feedstock in the United Kingdom, he waited five days until 6 November before imposing restrictions? Why did he not issue precautionary notices to farmers immediately, warning them not to give this contaminated feedstock to their animals, thereby avoiding unnecessary cattle deaths and potentially hazardous milk entering the food chain?

Mr. Curry: The Minister acted with exemplary promptness. The hon. Gentleman has made a profession of trying to promote this sort of scare. We took action immediately. We recalled the contaminated feedstock and we have taken steps to ensure that no milk is distributed from the farms and no animals are slaughtered off the farms. We have taken every measure that could be taken and acted with a promptness of which the hon. Gentleman would have been proud had he been responsible for it.

Hens

Mr. Baldry: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received concerning the testing of small flocks of free-range hens.

Mr. Gummer: I have received a large number of representations. These were taken into account in the preparation of the new orders of 26 October and will result in a considerable reduction in the cost of testing, particularly for small flocks.

Mr. Baldry: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the testing requirements for salmonella for small flocks have caused considerable concern for organisations such as the Women's Institute and for people such as my mother-in-law, who sell free-range eggs at stalls at


Women's Institute branches and at farm gates? These organisations and individuals will welcome the much simplified testing arrangements. the substantially reduced requirement for testing and the substantially reduced costs of testing for salmonella. Any reasonable-minded person will feel that my right hon. Friend has struck a fair balance.

Mr. Gummer: I have received many letters from people who have stated that we have done exactly what was right. I do not know whether my hon. Friend's mother-in-law was among them. We had to put the safety of the eggs first. If we had not done that, smaller flocks such as those owned by my hon. Friend's mother-in-law might have been blamed for a future outbreak of salmonella. That would have been damaging to the consumer and to my hon. Friend's mother-in-law.

Mr. Beith: Why was it that when one of my constituents from Wooler made representations to the Minister on this matter and was featured in a national newspaper, a newspaper cutting was sent to the regional eggs inspector, who was dispatched on a 300-mile trip to warn my constituent to stop selling eggs that were not in boxes and had not been through a packing station? Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to enforce these crazy packing rules on all free-range eggs sold in shops, or is enforcement reserved as a form of intimidation that is more characteristic of East European regimes than one would expect in this country?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman is being less than kind. We sought to help his constituent—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman should hear me out. In the course of becoming aware of the lady's problem, we discovered that she might inadvertently have been breaking the law. She may have been doing what the hon. Gentleman said: selling her product through the village shop. We have laws that are designed to protect people from being ripped off. If we allowed free-range eggs to be sold that were not boxed some people would try to obtain a premium from eggs that were not produced in that way. I thought that the hon. Gentleman belonged to a party which believed in protecting the consumer. I put the consumer first.

Mr. Key: As a rural Member, I have been under pressure from a number of members of the Women's Institute, including my wife, about egg production. I hope that my right hon. Friend can clarify a serious issue that arises from the orders that he has laid. There is genuine confusion about small flocks. When there is talk about a small flock of fewer than 25 birds, does that mean chickens or a combination of 25 chickens and ducks, for example? Will my right hon. Friend clarify the position?

Mr. Gummer: We are talking about 25 chickens. The combination position is quite different. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that those of us who believe that we should be allowed to buy free range eggs, in the knowledge that they are both safe and free range when we pay for them, do not want the market to be undermined by those who want to get rid of the restrictions. We do not want them to move in and make a fast buck.

Mr. Home Robertson: Will the Minister confirm that in recent months six consignments of imported eggs have been found to be contaminated with salmonella, yet all those consignments have been sold on the British market

without let or hindrance? What is the point of driving 1,600 British egg producers out of business, as the Government have done during the past year, and then allowing foreign producers to fill the gap in the market without being subject to equivalent safety tests? Should there not now be effective health controls on all eggs supplied to British shops?

Mr. Gummer: Of course I can confirm those figures because they are my own figures; they were given to the hon. Gentleman by my Ministry. The hon. Gentleman does himself and his party no service if he does not admit that the Government are fighting for our regulations on salmonella to be extended throughout the whole of the European Community. That is the only fair way to go about things. In the meantime, the 97 per cent. of eggs that people buy in this country, which are produced by this country's farmers, are all the safer because they are protected by our regulations. The hon. Gentleman should be fighting for people in Britain to buy British eggs, knowing that they are better protected. He and his hon. Friends should not constantly try to undermine the market.

Mr. Alexander: Is it not true that free-range hens can often be more at risk of salmonella than battery hens because of birds of the air and others farmyard detritus? Have the figures that my hon. Friend has produced helped to resolve that argument?

Mr. Gummer: When the salmonella arguments began, there were those who immediately jumped to the conclusion that the problem would help them in their argument in favour of free-range hens rather than battery hens. The very best that can be said is that there is no proof that the risks of salmonella are any less in free-range eggs than they are in any other sort of eggs. Indeed, my hon. Friend is right to say that there are natural hazards which could perhaps lead to somewhat greater risks in free-range eggs.
If we are to have a healthy egg industry in Britain, we must ensure that our eggs are better protected than other eggs. People should be aware that the eggs that they buy are much safer and much more likely to be healthy eggs if they buy British. Whether my hon. Friend or his constituents want battery eggs, perch eggs or free-range eggs, they should first ensure that they are buying British eggs.

Sheep

Mr. Livsey: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the present state of the British sheep industry.

Mr. Curry: The industry is pleased that the essential decisions on reform of the sheepmeat regime have been taken and is anxious to get on with the job of securing export markets.

Mr. Livsey: What assistance will the Minister give to those sheep farmers in the less-favoured areas who this autumn have suffered a drop of at least one third in the sale value of their breeding ewes? That is a serious loss. Will the Minister therefore consider paying compensation to farmers who have sustained that loss due to changes in the transitional arrangements of the European Community sheepmeat regime?

Mr. Curry: There has been a drop in breeding ewe prices, although of late the recovery has been quite sharp. Some uncertainty played a part in that, but weather conditions resulting in lack of grass and forage also played a significant role. I am not prepared to consider compensation, but I am prepared to set out the final details of the regime so that there is certainty. The producers whom the hon. Gentleman and I represent in our constituencies will have a buoyant export market and stability to look forward to, which is far more useful to them than living in a permanent state of uncertainty with the threat of a change in their regime always imminent but never quite happening.

Mr. Holt: Does my hon. Friend agree that the British sheep industry recently suffered the grievous loss of a trans-shipment of sheep from New Zealand to a constituent of mine. They were a special strain of sheep which is gradually becoming extinct and they died as a result of the activities of customs officers at Honolulu airport. Will my hon. Friend make the strongest representations to the Americans to ensure that sheep coming to Britain in future will not have to remain for an hour and a half on the tarmac without air conditioning?

Mr. Curry: I entirely endorse my hon. Friend's comments. We have already taken up that matter most strongly with the United States authorities and will continue to press it.

Mr. John P. Smith: Will the Minister give the House a categorical guarantee that British sheep farmers will not be any worse off as a result of the negotiations currently taking place in Brussels?

Mr. Curry: I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Commission's proposals to limit hill livestock compensatory allowances to the less-favoured areas. I can tell him categorically that we are opposed in principle to the Commission's suggestion because it discriminates against British farming.

Mr. Bill Walker: My hon. Friend will be aware that in Scotland the Highland clearances removed the people so that sheep could be put in the glens and on the mountains. Is he satisfied that the changes that have taken place in the common agricultural policy will not result in a second Highland clearance, this time of the sheep? Will he confirm the strategic need to maintain the livestock on Scotland's hills?

Mr. Curry: I certainly confirm my hon. Friend's remarks. Continuing with the previous system would have threatened that livelihood in the hills and we were under continual pressure on that. However, as I have already said, we are determined to fight for the future of the British uplands which, in many cases, is based upon sheep.

Pesticides

Mr. McCartney: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when his advisory committee on pesticides last met; and what matters were discussed.

Mr. Maclean: The advisory committee on pesticides last met on 19 October when it reviewed a number of pesticides, the labelling of timber treatment products and the operation of the wildlife incident investigation scheme.

Mr. McCartney: Is the Minister aware that on Tuesday this week I introduced a Bill to ban pesticides such as lindane? Is he also aware that since then I have been inundated with telephone calls from doctors, solicitors and members of families complaining of cases in which people have suffered from illnesses similar to that produced by lindane poisoning? This is a grossly under-reported area of the market. Will the Minister meet the all-party home safety committee and appropriate Ministers from other Departments to discuss the serious matter of the poisoning of the home environment by lindane and other nasty chemicals which can still be sold in do-it-yourself stores throughout Britain?

Mr. Maclean: I took the opportunity of reading the speech that the hon. Gentleman made when he introduced his 10-minute Bill last Tuesday. The possible effects of lindane on the food chain have been reviewed by my Department's independent advisory committee on pesticides and we are satisfied that the uses of lindane in the agricultural sector are now so limited that there is no damage to the food chain. However, the Health and Safety Executive is reviewing lindane's industrial and home uses and I cannot comment on that at this stage.

Mr. Boswell: Is not the Department to be congratulated on its recently published attractive booklet on pesticide use which deals with the issues in an adult manner? Will my hon. Friend undertake to release as much information as possible within the limits of confidentiality to contribute to a full debate on this important matter?

Mr. Maclean: I thank my hon. Friend. I thought that the booklet was excellent, and I hope that it will be widely circulated among hon. Members and the community. It explains the rigorous checks that the Government apply to all pesticides, and the work of the independent academic experts who give the Government the best advice in the world.

Mr. Mallon: Is the Minister aware of the deep concern about the use of the chemical nuvan as a pesticide in fish farming, especially salmon farming? What advice has he received from the advisory committee about the damage done by that chemical to the natural life of the sea, and to the environment in general?

Mr. Maclean: That pesticide is due for review by our independent advisory committee, and I do not wish to say anything before that review is completed.

Straw Burning

Mr. David Porter: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to review the effectiveness of the current measures designed to regulate straw burning.

Mr. Maclean: My right hon. Friend the Minister has already announced a far-reaching review of straw and stubble burning, which will take account of the many representations that we have received. We hope to announce the conclusions of the review shortly.

Mr. Porter: I appreciate that my hon. Friend will wish to strike a happy balance between those who want a total ban and farmers who regard burning straw stubble as a


necessity. I commend to my hon. Friend the proposal for a proper regulated licensing scheme, which I feel would strike that happy balance.

Mr. Maclean: We shall consider every proposal put to us, including that one. I promise all hon. Members who wrote to me about the matter that we shall consider their views, and those of their constituents, very thoroughly.

Mr. Morley: Given the considerable potential for commercial and energy-based use of straw—and given that the arguments for burning it are tenuous, and that burning leads to habitat destruction, pollution and considerable nuisance for those living in rural areas—does the Minister agree that it is time that he drew up distinct proposals for an outright ban, rather than byelaws which have been shown not to work by the National Society for Clean Air?

Mr. Maclean: First, I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Front Bench. I have enjoyed his speeches in the past.
I repeat that we shall consider carefully all representations made to us. My Department already encourages alternatives to straw burning through a variety of publicity campaigns. Those alternatives include straw incorporation and its use as a fuel, and we make grants available to assist firms wishing to develop equipment for such purposes.

Hill Compensatory Allowances

Mr. Geraint Howells: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on discussions held with the European Community concerning hill compensatory allowances.

Mr. Curry: We are firmly opposed in principle to Commission proposals that would discriminate against British farmers in the less-favoured areas, where they are essential to the welfare of our countryside.

Mr. Howells: Can the Minister give an assurance that any withdrawal of FEOGA funds will be made up by the Government? Can he give a further assurance that the hill compensatory allowance for this year will be increased?

Mr. Curry: We oppose the Commission's proposals in principle, and our first battle involves making certain that we impress on our negotiating partners the fact that we will not surrender a principle that is so important to us. All other issues are subsidiary to that.

Liquid Milk

Mr. Gregory: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the latest estimate for the volume of liquid milk available for use in the confectionery industry; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Curry: The main use of liquid milk bought by the confectionery industry is for the manufacture of chocolate crumb. The current estimate of supplies for this purpose in the period January to August 1989 is 155 million litres, which compares with 153 million litres in 1983.

Mr. Gregory: Why is the volume of liquid milk available to the United Kingdom confectionery industry consistently held back? Companies such as Rowntree of York are forced to invest millions of pounds in machinery to take powdered milk when they would prefer to use

liquid milk. Will my hon. Friend hold urgent discussions to ensure that quotas are increased so that the industry can use this natural product?

Mr. Curry: There is a proposal to increase quotas, but we are opposed to it because we believe that there is no case for an increase across the Community as a whole. My hon. Friend will know, however, that the milk marketing board is altering its seasonal scale to encourage producers to produce milk more in the trough. I hope that that will go some way towards solving the problem.

Mr. Martlew: In view of that reply, will the Minister ask his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to write a letter of apology to the Dairy Trade Federation after the ridiculous and crass speech that he made yesterday to the federation? He criticised it for its inability to affect the amount of dairy imports when in reality there is not enough milk in this country for manufacture. Will the Minister ensure that his right hon. Friend sends that letter of apology and is briefed before he speaks again to the federation?

Mr. Curry: Not the least of my right hon. Friend's talents is his ability to tell home truths to people who might not be interested in receiving them.

Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances

Mr. Hague: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to be able to announce the level of hill livestock compensatory allowance payments for 1990.

Mr. Curry: An announcement on the 1990 hill livestock compensatory allowance rates and the scheme conditions will be made as soon as possible, following completion of the autumn review of the economic conditions in the hill and upland areas.

Mr. Hague: Does my hon. Friend agree that continued livestock farming in the upland areas is indispensable to much of Britain's finest countryside, not to mention many rural communities? If so, does he agree that an increase in the HLCA payments to help hill farmers through their current difficulties would be the best value for money of any environmental expenditure?

Mr. Curry: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of hill farmers as we have neighbouring constituencies which share the same characteristics. Our first priority is to make sure that we get this right in Brussels. Then it will depend on getting it right in the United Kingdom.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Haynes: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 November.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Haynes: In the shambles of the privatisation of nuclear energy, who should take the blame? Should it be the advisers who advise or the Ministers who decide?

The Prime Minister: rose—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This takes up a lot of time.

The Prime Minister: If there were a shambles, that question would arise. As there is not, it does not.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is an intrinsic part of Conservative philosophy to conserve our environment and our heritage? Further, does my right hon. Friend accept that all those who are concerned with preserving the rain forests will applaud the practical lead that she has given towards that end?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that the Government have given a lead in tackling the problems of climate change. In particular, we have given a lead in our aid programme for conserving the forests, especially in Brazil, where, through my right hon. Friend who is now the Secretary of State for the Environment, we signed the first such agreement between an industrial country and a country with tropical forests. We have also signed one with India. I was able to announce at the United Nations the earmarking of £100 million under our tropical forest action programme. That is good news, both for developing countries and for the developed world.

Mr. Kinnock: What is the Prime Minister's answer to the question put to her and her colleagues by Brighton ambulance man Brian Murray, holder of the British Empire Medal, who asked: "Why do they have such short, ungrateful memories?"

The Prime Minister: We have great gratitude to the ambulance men. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, through the Whitley council they were offered a 6·5 per cent. increase backdated to April and in London 9·3 per cent., backdated to April, both of which would amount to quite a considerable small lump sum if it were taken now. They had also reached an agreement on 24 October about how to run the emergency services. We very much regret that that agreement is not being honoured. It was fully agreed between management and people.

Mr. Kinnock: If the Prime Minister is so confident of the case, why does she not let Mr. Murray and his colleagues go to arbitration? Does she recognise that to lavish praise on ambulance people at the time of a disaster and then to stop them going to arbitration is gross hypocrisy?

The Prime Minister: No. This is negotiated through the Whitley council. It was negotiated through the Whitley council and was recommended for acceptance.

Mr. Leigh: When my right hon. Friend completed her interview with Mr. Brian Walden, did she receive any complaints from the programme staff about the fact that the Leader of the Opposition had wriggled out of giving

his interview? When she was Leader of the Opposition, did she ever fear to have her intellectual competence questioned?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he must ask a question on which the Prime Minister has ministerial responsibility.

Mr. Bell: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Bell: During the course of her busy day, would the Prime Minister take time to read yesterday's Evening Standard headline:
Thatcher's Plan to Save The World"?
Will she kindly tell the House, in the scheme of things, what ambassadorship she would offer the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), what post she would offer the deputy leader of the Tory party, the deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), and what are her plans for the universe?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would do me the courtesy of reading the speech.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I thank my right hon. Friend for persuading our right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to listen to the pleas of Andrew Gorst, a 14-year-old pupil at Ripley St. Thomas in my constituency, who keeps 48 hens and has some very satisfied customers. He would have had to pay as much as someone with 10,000 hens but now he will pay at a very reduced rate. I should like to say "Thank you very much" to my right hon. Friend.

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure my right hon. Friend the Minister deserves all the compliments for listening to the case of a small farmer and taking the requisite action.

Mr. McGrady: Does the Prime Minister agree that her announcement in New York yesterday of £5·5 million for environmental research is a poor substitute for the £33 million that she withdrew from the natural environment research council in February this year? That affected 160 scientists, 41 of whom are involved in research into ozone and the glowing heat effect. Will she reinstate that budget?

The Prime Minister: The grant allocated to the natural environment research council by the advisory board for all research councils was put up, having regard to the importance of the work of the British Antarctic Survey, to the importance of the world experiment on the circulation of the oceans—we shall take part in that—and to the need to put more into satellite work on monitoring climate change.

Mr. Gale: Can my right hon. Friend think of any circumstances in which it might be proper to take industrial action against the sick, the disabled and the infirm? Can she think of any occasion on which such action has been condemned by the Leader of the Opposition?

The Prime Minister: It is always a matter of great regret and concern if strike action is taken against the sick and the infirm, particularly when there was an agreement on 24


October with regard to accident and emergency services which is not now being operated. We must also bear in mind that nine out of 10 miles done by the ambulance service are not for accidents and emergencies but to get people to hospital, whether as in-patients or out-patients. Most of those non-emergency people are managing excellently to get themselves to hospital. But that does not alter the main point of my hon. Friend's question—that action should not be taken against the sick.

Mr. McCartney: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. McCartney: When the chairman of the Conservative party recently said that the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), had resigned because of long-standing serious differences with the Prime Minister on economic policy, was he telling the truth?

The Prime Minister: I have nothing further to add to the statements that I made at the Dispatch Box last week.

Disabled People

Mr. Hannam: To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on recently announced measures to assist the disabled.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has recently announced a number of measures to give extra help to some 500,000 disabled people and carers. These will add a further £100 million on top of the £8·3 billion a year being spent on benefits for long-term sick and disabled people in real terms. That is nearly double what was being spent in 1979.

Mr. Hannam: I thank my right hon. Friend for the recent improvements, especially the carers' allowance and the mobility allowance for deaf-blind people. Does she recall her 1979 commitment to introduce a system of cash benefits to meet the costs of disablement? Will she therefore take a personal interest in the current review of disability benefits to ensure that that promise is implemented to help the 6 million disabled people in Britain to live a life of dignity?

The Prime Minister: I hope that my hon. Friend will consider that we have honoured our pledge by increasing the amount spent on the disabled by 90 per cent. in real terms—that is, over and above inflation—since 1979. The number of people receiving help with their extra costs through mobility allowance has increased sixfold and through attendance allowance threefold over the past decade. That is a record of which the Government can be proud. I certainly assure my hon. Friend that we shall be seeking to do more to help many disabled people who at present do not receive mobility allowance or attendance allowance.

Mr. Ashley: Is the Prime Minister aware that although her figures are correct, the impression that she seeks to create is false? In the past 10 years the real value of the average male take-home pay has risen by 20 per cent. while

the average real value of disablement benefit has risen by less than 1 per cent. That is why her boast about helping disabled people has a hollow ring.

The Prime Minister: I do not think that the many people who now receive disablement benefits but did not receive them before will find that that comes with a hollow ring. There are many people in receipt of disablement benefits who never received them before. Spending on the disabled has increased from £1·8 billion in 1978–79 to £8·3 billion in cash terms. That is an increase of £4 billion in real terms. Of that real increase, £3·5 billion is attributable to the increased number of beneficiaries—those who otherwise would not have received benefit—and £500 million to the increase in the average amounts paid.

Mr. Thurnham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to help the disabled is to target help to those who are most in need? Does she particularly welcome the new benefits of up to £65 per week for families with severely disabled babies?

The Prime Minister: Yes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning the sum of £65 per week which is intended to help those people. I know my hon. Friend's personal record in this matter and the tremendous interest that he has taken in that aspect of disablement and we all honour him for the lead that he has given.

Mr. Nellist: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Nellist: Is the Prime Minister aware that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) this morning again put the Government's view that there is no compatibility between the dangers faced by firefighters and those faced by ambulance workers? Where does the Prime Minister think that ambulance workers were at King's Cross or the Brighton hotel, when she was particularly pleased to see them—waiting outside like glorified taxi drivers? When will she stop treating the women and men of the ambulance service as though they were members of her Cabinet? Why does she not pull out the Army, pay ambulance workers the money and stop risking lives?

The Prime Minister: First, the point about comparability with other emergency services was considered by the Clegg commission, which was set up by a Labour Government but whose recommendations were honoured by a Conservative Government because the Labour Government did not have the money—they just made promises. The Clegg commission did not uphold the demand for comparability between the services. The London ambulance service has been offered 9·3 per cent., backdated to April. The way to conduct the negotiations was through the Whitley council.

Mr. John Browne: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Browne: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, whatever the route selected for the M3 around Winchester,


it will inevitably cause serious environmental damage? As it was the Government of the day who diverted the route from the open country to the north of Winchester to the sensitive area to the south-east of Winchester, will she reassure the House that the Secretary of State for Transport will speedily be given sufficient funds to ensure that whatever route is finally selected it will be friendly to the special and historic environment around Winchester, which is a national asset?

The Prime Minister: I know of my hon. Friend's interest in this as he has been in correspondence and has been to see me about it. He knows that at the moment my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport are considering the reports of two independent inspectors, who held public inquiries into proposals for that road scheme. I cannot anticipate what their decisions will be, but I know that they fully understand the importance of environmental issues in cases such as this.

Business of the House

Dr. John Cunningham: May I ask the Leader of the House to give the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY I3 NOVEMBER—Opposition Day (2nd Allotted Day—2nd Part). Until Seven o'clock there will be a debate on an Opposition motion entitled "The need for a clear change of Government policy on Cambodia".
Motion to take note of EC documents on a European environment agency and a monitoring and information network. Details will be given in the Official Report.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at Seven o'clock.
TUESDAY I4 NOVEMBER—Supplemental guillotine motion on and consideration of Lords amendments to the Self-Governing Schools Etc. (Scotland) Bill.
Motion relating to the National Health Service (General Medical and Pharmaceutical Services) (Scotland) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations.
Motion to take note of EC document on Bovine Somatotropin. Details will be given in the Official Report.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at Seven o'clock.
WEDNESDAY I5 NOVEMBER—Motion to take note of the White Paper on developments in the European Community January-June 1989 (Cm. 801).
THURSDAY I6 NOVEMBER—It will be proposed that the House will meet for prorogation at 9.30 am.
The House may be asked to consider any Lords Messages and other business as necessary.

[Monday 13 November

Relevant European Community Documents


(a) 8030/89
European Environment Agency


(b) 9785/86
Fourth Community Environmental Action Programme


(c) 9182/88
Access to Information on the Environment


(d) 8882/89
Environment and Natural Resource Information Collection

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee

(a) HC 15-xxxii (1988–89), para 4, and HC 15-xxxv (1988–89), para 7
(b) HC 22-ii ( 1986–87), para 12 and HC 22-xi ( 1986–87), para 1
(c) HC 15-xv (1988–89), para 2
(d) HC 15-xxxvi (1988–89), para 9

Tuesday 14 November

Relevant European Community Document


(a) 8975/89
Bovine Somatotrophin

Relevant Report of European Legislation Committee

(a) HC 15-xxxv (1988–89), para 11.]

Dr. Cunningham: Will the Leader of the House assist the House by saying when the Chancellor's Autumn Statement will be, assuming that there is to be one next week? I am sure that even Conservative Members are anxious to hear the good news from the Treasury.
Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 68, "Treatment of widows of servicemen"?
[That this House recognises the unfair treatment of the war widows and widows of servicemen who retired before 31st March 1973 and those widows who married their husbands after their retirement from the Armed Forces both prior and subsequent to 6th April 1978 and urges Her Majesty's Government to remove these artificial time bars in order that all war widows and widows of servicemen may receive the current rate for those pensions irrespective of the date of their husbands' retirement or the date of their marriage.]
With Remembrance Sunday imminent, and with the widespread all-party support of more than half the Members of Parliament, will the Leader of the House find time for an early debate on our treatment of widows of service men?
Given today's long list of private Bills and the huge congestion in private business and carry-over motions, will the Leader of the House make an early and positive response to the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure? I hope that he will feel able to do so. Again, I am sure that such a statement would be warmly welcomed in the House.
Given the announcement of yet another guillotine motion and the fact that the Session has ended with a plethora of such motions, late nights and masses of last-minute Government amendments to legislation, does the Leader of the House recognise that in economic policy and in Cabinet government, as well as in legislative terms, the Government have ended the Session in a shambles, while Labour Members are happy to end it with a substantial majority of the British people looking forward to a Labour Government?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman is doing his best to justify his change of perch on the Opposition Front Bench. We are not at all impressed by this repeated assertion about a shambles. The British people will continue to support the Government with total confidence.
Let me give the hon. Gentleman an illustration of the orderly way in which we respond to his questions. He asked first about the possibility of an Autumn Statement. For the convenience of the House, I should say that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer hopes to be able to make the Autumn Statement on Wednesday.
On the hon. Gentleman's second point about war widows, I am sure that he will not need me to emphasise the extent to which the Government and the House have great sympathy for war widows. We recognise the sacrifice that they have made. As a matter of fact, they already receive preferential treatment in terms of pensions and allowances, which have recently been extended and improved by the Government. Further improvements are due to come into effect next April. I hope that this will be seen as a sign of the extent to which we have their interests in mind. Obviously, given the time left before the end of the Session, I cannot offer the prospect of a debate next week.
On the hon. Gentleman's last point about the private Bill procedure, I congratulate him on having recognised so quickly after his appointment the importance of this complex topic. I do not pretend to be a master of the minutiae of the Joint Committee's report. This is a topic on which we clearly need to consult a wide range of


interests as well as listening to the views expressed in the House. When I have done that, I hope to come forward with proposals that could commend themselves to the House. The matter deserves such serious attention. In the meantime, I hope that hon. Members will take my comments seriously and in good faith and will permit private business to proceed this evening and for the rest of the Session in a constructive and orderly fashion.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sure that I need not remind the House that there are two statements before the Standing Order No. 20 debate. Business questions should refer to the business for next week, not to more general topics.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that many Conservative Members would make the request that has been made by the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), for a debate at the earliest possible opportunity on the pensions of pre-1973 war widows? If this country can afford to pay off the national debt, does not my right hon. and learned Friend believe that we have a debt of honour that should be paid off to those widows?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I take this fresh opportunity to emphasise the extent to which all hon. Members have deepest sympathy for war widows. [HON. MEMBERS: "Do something."] That is why the Government have already taken certain steps and announced further steps which will take effect next April. I shall bear in mind my hon. Friend's request for a debate at an early opportunity, but plainly it cannot take place next week.

Mr. James Wallace: The Leader of the House may be aware that last year his predecessor said that an Opposition Day given to the minority parties because there had not been time in the 1987–88 Session would be carried forward to the present Session. Unfortunately, there has been no time for it this Session. Will he give an undertaking that the matter has not been forgotten and that next Session, in addition to the three days allocated in the Standing Orders, the minority parties will be entitled to their remaining day?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's acceptance of the fact that it has not been possible to do more this Session. I cannot focus on the precise arithmetic for next Session, but I shall consider the point as carefully as possible.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: May I add my plea to that of the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) about war widows? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that early-day motion 68 has now been signed by 328 hon. Members from all parties? Does he think that it is fair that the widow of a private killed in the second world war receives £2,946 a year, whereas the widow of a private killed today receives £6,491 a year? Does he accept that it is no good to continue to say that the Government have great sympathy for those people? We want some action and I am sure that my right hon. and

learned Friend would meet the wishes of every hon. Member if he were to arrange a debate next week on this question.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have already made clear our willingness to contemplate the possibility of a debate. It is fair to remind the House that the Government have made substantial improvements and extensions to the arrangements for war widows. Further changes are to take effect next April. I fully understand the force of my hon. Friend's point, but it is right to emphasise that our sympathy has been   expressed in a practical way as far as possible.

Mr. John McWilliam: Does the Leader of the House accept that early-day motion 68, which stands in my name and that of 328 other hon. Members, and its two supporting amendments, represents the views of more than 75 per cent. of hon. Members? Feelings run extremely high. Will the Leader of the House assure us that if there is to be no substantive announcement in the Queen's Speech about paying this small amount of money to give equal treatment to all war widows, there will be a debate immediately following the debate on the Gracious Speech?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I emphasise again our understanding of the extent to which sympathy for war widows is widely shared throughout the House, and it is entirely natural that that should be so. If I have the figures correctly in mind, a change such as that suggested by the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) would cost about £600 million—[HON. MEMBERS: "So what?"] That is not a matter on which I am authorised to make a commitment from the Dispatch Box this afternoon. However, in relation to what I can do, I have said that I shall certainly see whether we can find an opportunity for a debate next Session. I understand the strength of feeling and I shall try to respond by offering the opportunity for a debate.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it would look strange if the House seems to be taking no interest in the momentous events in eastern Europe? Will he find an early date for a debate on that subject and especially our relations with those countries?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand the importance that my hon. and learned Friend attaches to events in eastern Europe, which are of momentous importance. He will have an opportunity to discuss that topic in one or other of the debates on the Gracious Speech.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Is it still too late to arrange for next week the long-delayed debate on parliamentary pensions, and when now will it take place? Is the Leader of the House aware of the importance of that debate to the widows of many of our former colleagues?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand the extent to which the right hon. Gentleman in particular has an interest in that topic, which concerns hon. Members of all parties. I personally regretted very much the fact that we had to postpone the debate from today, but I thought that it was right to do so in the light of the decision announced by you, Mr. Speaker. I can see no prospect of having that debate next week, but I shall try to find an early opportunity for discussion of that much-postponed and important matter.

Mr. Michael Latham: As the usual awning will be erected outside the House of Lords next week under which dignitaries may queue for the Queen's Speech, will my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House of Lords that that awning will stay there permanently until the House of Lords agrees to a better system to prevent our constituents from having to queue in the rain to go round the line of route?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not entirely certain, after my limited tenure of this office, of my authority to make such a bold assertion to those who run another place. I will certainly look into the matter to see whether there is anything that I can sensibly do about it.

Mr. Jack Ashley: I am sure that the Leader of the House shares the general concern felt by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the death of Beverley Lewis, the deaf-blind and mentally handicapped woman. Does he agree that we need a public inquiry to find out what happened and so avoid further tragedies? May we please debate that next week?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Gentleman, as so often, raises a matter of importance. That is obviously a tragic case. The right hon. Gentleman may be aware that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health has already called for full reports on the matter from the health and social services authorities. Those reports and the inquest findings will be examined carefully to discover whether they reveal gaps in the legislation or other arrangements that exist to deal with such cases.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that Wednesday's debate on the European Community is an opportunity to look ahead and not simply to consider previous White Paper developments? Does he also agree that it can include the matters raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence)—developments in eastern Europe—and should above all emphasise the Government's enthusiasm for the European Community? In view of the doubts that have arisen yet again recently about the Government's attitude on a number of key aspects of the development of the European Community, should we not show once again that we are approaching the forthcoming Strasbourg EC summit with total enthusiasm for new developments?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am sure that that debate will provide an opportunity for expressing those positive sentiments. Although the debate deals with the report relating to the Spanish presidency, hon. Members will want to refer to eastern Europe as well as to Community matters. If my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) participates, he will no doubt be able to contribute his own unique blend of positivism to the discussions.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Has the Leader of the House yet come to a decision about the letter that he received from my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) about the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland making statements to journalists before Northern Ireland questions? No doubt those statements were kept out of the way until Northern Ireland questions were over. Will the Leader of the House undertake as soon as possible to arrange for the Secretary of State for

Northern Ireland to reply to and clarify the contradictions and confusions that have arisen from the statements made by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland inside and outside the House?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not sure whether there will be an opportunity to make any such special arrangements, nor should there be any need to do that. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has already made the position very clear. There has been no change in Government policy. The overriding aim of all our policies in Northern Ireland is to bring terrorism to an end. The way forward to political stability must involve talks between the political parties and with the Government. However, those who support terrorism can play no part. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made it very clear that there is no question of Ministers having dealings with Sinn Fein as long as it supports terrorism, as it plainly continues to do.

Mr. Bob Dunn: Does the Leader of the House accept that it is a matter of deep regret that the business of the House next week will not permit a debate on British Rail's proposal to construct a high-speed link through Kent? Is he aware that British Rail's decision last week to defer the presentation of its Bill for another year and not to consider any other route is a matter of great concern? Will he therefore arrange a debate on this vexed subject as soon as possible in the new Session?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Of course, I understand my hon. Friend's concern with this subject. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has welcomed the announcement of a joint venture between British Rail and Eurorail to design, finance and build the Channel tunnel rail link. It is for British Rail and Eurorail to judge how and when to seek legislative approval for their proposals and they have decided that it is wiser to introduce a Bill in November 1990 so that all the details of the route through London can be finalised. I shall bring my hon. Friend's understandable concern with this matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

Mr. James Lamond: What about the deputy Prime Minister stepping in next week, perhaps at Question Time, to give the Prime Minister a bit of a break? What with rushing all over the place saving the world and so on, she has become so muddled that in a letter to me on Monday she referred——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should be the first to know that there is an important debate after this. I did ask for questions to be confined to next week's business.

Mr. Lamond: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I asked whether the deputy Prime Minister would step in next week in place of the Prime Minister. She is so muddled that she has forgotten which Ministers she moved in the reshuffles beause they are so frequent. It is misleading for hon. Members to receive letters asking them to get in touch with Ministers who have not been in the office concerned for more than three months.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman may understand his point, but I do not think that the rest of the House does.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I see that more hon. Members are now rising. I do not like to curtail business questions but today I shall allow them to continue for a further five minutes. We must then move on for the reasons that I have already stated.

Mr. John Browne: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that last year there were just under 8,000 serious accidents in schools of which seven were fatal, and that schools do not have the protection of the first aid provisions of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974? May I draw his attention to early-day motion 174 standing in my name and signed by no fewer than 323 other right hon. and hon. Members?
[That this House applauds the Approved Code of Practice which followed the Health and Safety (First Aid) Regulations 1981 (Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974) and which requires that, even in low hazard industries, every employer of more than 150 people should ensure the on site availability of a qualified first alder; believes the same requirement should apply to children in schools; further recognises the value of teaching first or emergency aid in schools; and applauds the initiative of the St. John Ambulance in issuing its publication Emergency Aid in Schools, which, accompanied by a video, shows how children can be taught a basic course between the ages of six and twelve years so that they are competent in assessing emergency situations, restarting breathing and circulation, dealing with bleeding, shock and unconsciousness especially resulting from drug or solvent abuse and burns and scalds an so qualifying for the St. John Ambulance Three Cross Emergency Aid Award.]
It calls for mandatory first aid protection to be offered to schools similar to that offered to even low-hazard industries. Please may we have a debate on the issue, which affects almost every household in the land——

Mr. Lamond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Browne: —at some time, and is strongly supported by more than half the Back Bench Members?

Mr. Lamond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I know what the point of order is likely to be, but put it briefly please.

Mr. Lamond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I signed the early-day motion and support the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne), but I do not see how the point that he is making has any relevance to next week's business. I expect fairness.

Mr. Speaker: Nor did points raised by the hon. Gentleman, but I agree.

Mr. Dave Nellist: May I ak the Leader of the House the question that I put to him last week? Can he arrange for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to come back to the House and make a further statement about his abdication of the Government's golden share in Jaguar and its consequences for thousands of my constituents and other denationalised industries, such as British Steel, and the possible—I stress "possible"—denationalisation of electricity and water? Is it not a fact that all creditor companies that want to take

over privatised concerns regard those pieces of paper called golden shares as totally worthless? Why does not the Secretary of State come to explain that to the House?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I told the hon. Member last week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already made a statement to the House about the Government's special share in Jaguar. However, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise wider aspects of that decision, he will have an opportunity to do so in debates after the House resumes, and on other occasions when the Secretary of State is here.

Mr. Richard Holt: May I also refer to my question on last week's business statement when I asked my right hon. and learned Friend whether we could have a debate on toxic waste? He said that no one is interested in arranging such a debate. Is he speaking for the Opposition Front Bench and the Government Front Bench? If not, can we have a change of heart as it is an important subject which should be debated in the House in conjunction with the Select Committee report?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot imagine that I put the matter as brutally as my hon. Friend recollects. It is a topic which clearly deserves consideration. In due course we will have to see whether either side of the House brings it forward for debate.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to make a further statement on Jaguar next week in the light of the evidence given to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry by Sir John Egan in which he stated that Jaguar asked the Secretary of State not to waive the golden share? Will he also ask his right hon. Friend to say what discussions he has had with Ford in relation to research and development, jobs, the buying of British components and the location of Jaguar and all future models in the west midlands?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The matter of Jaguar is one for the shareholders. Competition policy in general, including implications for relations with Ford, is something which my right hon. Friend will consider on the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading. I should have thought that any evidence given to the Select Committee would be considered by that Committee rather than by my right hon. Friend in mid-flight.

Mr. Harry Greenway: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend for a debate or statement next week on the future of concessionary travel and bus passes for the elderly, the disabled and the blind after the expiration of the present scheme early next year? Is he aware that the London boroughs have not got their act together on this? The people concerned are worried that they might lose their passes—they must not.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Although I cannot promise a debate, I am sure that the fact that my hon. Friend has raised it so clearly in the House today will be considered by the authorities in London as they decide what to do next.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry that I have been unable to call the remaining hon. Members, but I must now call the statement from the Secretary of State for Energy.

Electricity Privatisation

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Wakeham): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about electricity privatisation and nuclear power.
The Government remain determined to complete electricity privatisation, with all the benefits it will bring, in the lifetime of this Parliament. The preparations for the new system have brought issues into the open. In particular, attention has been focused on the costs of nuclear power. The Government have for some time recognised that our nuclear power is more costly than power from fossil-fuelled generating stations. [Interruption.] Nevertheless, it has an important role to play in providing diversity of supply and in protecting the environment.
On 24 July, my predecessor told the House that the improved transparency brought about by the preparations for privatisation had revealed substantially increased costs, relating primarily to the Magnox stations. This led us to the conclusion that the Magnox stations should remain under Government control.
Contract negotiations for nuclear stations have moved on since July. Discussions have taken place about financing new nuclear power stations. The Government told the House on a number of occasions during the passage of the Bill that the arrangements for nuclear power would strike the appropriate balance between the interests of the taxpayer, the electricity consumer and the shareholder. In the event, unprecedented guarantees were being sought. I am not willing to underwrite the private sector in this way. [Interruption.]
Given those factors, the Government have concluded that the English advanced gas-cooled reactors and Sizewell B should remain, along with the Magnox stations, in a Government-owned company. This company will inherit all the nuclear-related assets, expertise and support currently residing in the Central Electricity Generating Board, including the CEGB's rightly praised expertise in health and safety. Safety will continue to be paramount. Standards will be maintained at their present high level.
I am happy to announce that Mr. John Collier, chairman of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, has agreed to become chairman of the new nuclear company. He brings to this vital task a wealth of experience in the nuclear industry and well-recognised leadership qualities.
The company will be a substantial one, with a positive cash flow. [Interruption.] It could provide between 15 and 20 per cent. of electricity supplied in the mid 1990s. The company will retain the ability to construct and operate new nuclear capacity. It will not own any fossil-generating stations. Thus the prospects for fossil generators will remain essentially unaffected.
The CEGB's other power stations will be allocated between National Power and PowerGen as previously announced. Both companies will be major fossil-based generators, and will be privatised in this Parliament, as will the distribution companies.
We want to preserve the strategic role of nuclear power in order to maintain adequate diversity of electricity supply, avoid too great a reliance on a single fuel and obtain the benefits of this environmentally clean source of

energy. As a result of privatisation, there will be competition in the electricity market, which is likely, of itself, to lead to greater fuel diversity. There are already a number of proposals for new generating projects based on combined cycle gas turbine technology, which of course leads to lower carbon dioxide emissions. Oil-fired stations have a role to play.
In the light of their performance to date, it should be possible, subject to the views of the nuclear installations inspectorate, for the lifetime of at least some of the Magnox stations to be extended. The Government will make available funds for any justifiable investment for this purpose.
In view of the factors which I have mentioned bearing on diversity, some of which relate to fossil fuels, the non-fossil obligation will be set at a level which can be satisfied without the construction of new nuclear stations beyond Sizewell B. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear.] The Government attach the highest importance to the successful completion and operation of Sizewell B in order to maintain the PWR option in the United Kingdom.
I am asking the CEGB to consider urgently what action it wishes to take with respect to its applications for my consent to build PWR stations at Hinkley Point C, Wylfa B and Sizewell C. The Government's statement is being communicated to the Hinkley Point C inquiry.
There will continue to be the opportunity, as has been made clear previously, for other non-fossil generation to contribute to the non-fossil fuel obligation. In particular, we will maintain the arrangements for the 600 MW special tranche for renewables announced by my right hon. Friend during the summer.
My proposals will not have an impact on the electricity industry's carbon dioxide emissions until about the turn of the century. By then we fully expect gas-fired stations to be playing an important role in electricity generation, and by maintaining the nuclear option we are creating the opportunity for a longer-term contribution from economic nuclear power.
The distribution companies need to be clear what their obligations will be for a reasonable period ahead. The Government will wish to review the prospects for nuclear power as the Sizewell B project nears completion in 1994.
The nuclear company has a long future as a supplier of nuclear-generated electricity. This should provide continuing attractive employment opportunities. The pension rights of existing staff will be protected, as will their ability to benefit from the sale of the rest of the industry. I shall be discussing the implementation of these proposals with all parties concerned, including the trade unions.
The price of the nuclear company's electricity will be set at a level consistent with its earning a return appropriate to public sector bodies. Since the price of nuclear electricity is likely still to be somewhat higher than that of fossil-fuelled electricity, the fossil fuel levy will be used to share the additional cost over all electricity suppliers.
This decision will help preserve diversity of supply and maintain the nuclear option. We will complete electricity privatisation in the lifetime of this Parliament, and in so doing will safeguard the interests of consumers, taxpayers and shareholders alike.

Mr. Frank Dobson: That really was one of the most extraordinary statements that


the House has ever heard. We have been told that the Thatcher Cabinet has declared the privatised electricity supply industry a nuclear-free zone.
What a shambles the Government are making of the electricity industry. Against the advice of the Labour party and of many other knowledgeable people, including the members of the Select Committee on Energy, the Government insisted that nuclear power stations should be privatised. In the words of the then Secretary of State for Energy in April this year, private ownership of nuclear stations would get them away from political influence and make them better managed, better off and more accountable. Does his successor acknowledge now that those words, the ritual Tory incantation about privatisation, have proved false and misleading?
Today's announcement confirms what we and the Energy Select Committee said: the nuclear power stations have proved unsaleable. This madcap scheme has been stopped in its tracks by the financial facts of life. The Tories' friends in the City would not buy nuclear power stations at any price. The private sector wants to take over only the fossil fuel assets and the Government expect the taxpayer to pick up the bill for the liabilities—in this case, irradiated liabilities.
This statement leaves the Government's plans in tatters. They promised their friends that they would create competing private generating companies, yet this latest plan will establish a separate, publicly owned nuclear monopoly from which the Government's friends, running the privatised distribution companies, will be obliged by law to buy electricity.
So much for competition. We know that whoever decides the price of this nuclear power in future, it will certainly not be the customers who, we were told, would be of paramount importance.
The Government's cockeyed arrangements for conventional electricity generation, with one large and one small company, are also in tatters. The size of the large company was justified, they said, by its need for more than its fair share of conventional power stations to compensate it for taking on the responsibility for nuclear power stations. Without the nuclear element, the imbalance between the two companies is ludicrous and unjustifiable; one will have more than 50 per cent. of the capacity, the other less than 30 per cent. Unless the Government change that imbalance, the customers will suffer.
The Government must now reconsider these ramshackle arrangements, which have never been argued before this House. It is no good the Government or their officials or press officers blaming the advice that they received from officials or from people in the electricity industry. As the Prime Minister is fond of saying, advisers advise, Ministers decide. In this case, the Ministers had lots of advice about the costs and problems of nuclear power; the trouble was that they took the bad advice and ignored the good—entirely typically for this incompetent Government.
Despite the obfuscation in the statement, it also spells out——

Mr. James Wallace: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Should not a question be asked rather than a response statement made?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), as a former shadow Leader of the House, will appreciate the pressure on business today.

Mr. Dobson: Indeed, Mr. Speaker. Is the Secretary of State aware that, despite the obfuscations, this statement spells the end of the Government's commitment to an expanded programme of nuclear power? As late as 27 September, the right hon. Gentleman said that the stations he talked about today would be transferred to the private sector, reflecting, he said, the British Government's continuing faith in the future of nuclear power. Does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that his statement today shows that they no longer have faith in nuclear power?
This is a humiliating climbdown by the Government, who have treated the industry and its staff as a plaything. The problem results from the Prime Minister's twin obsession with privatisation and nuclear power, and from having a Cabinet full of Ministers who are unwilling to tell her the truth. The House and the country will want the truth and we shall want a debate, because the people of this country and the people who work in the industry are entitled to know about their future. And this House is entitled to be consulted about the whole future of the electricity industry, which is now a shambles.

Mr. Wakeham: I think that the first thing that I should do is to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment as a shadow spokesman for energy. I know that he long wanted what he thought was a proper Department to shadow. I hope that I have at least given him something to get his teeth into to start off with. I am sorry that he has made such a mess of his first opportunity. I cannot decide whether he supports or opposes what the Government have announced. "Shambles" is a word that springs freely from his lips. I heard it first when I was in the bath this morning and I heard it again this afternoon. It is utter nonsense.
The decision will help to ensure that the privatisation of the rest of the industry will take place as I have pledged within the lifetime of this Parliament. The hon. Gentleman suggests that the Government are doing this at any price. If he had listened carefully to my statement he would have heard me say just the opposite. I said that we were not prepared to pay the risk premium which the banks and National Power were demanding. The rest of the industry will be privatised, and we are determined to get full value for the taxpayer in the proceeds.
The proposals that we have put forward will ensure fair competition between generators, whatever their size. We have no intention of changing the allocation of assets at this stage because we do not believe that to do so would be in the interests of the consumer or of the privatisation. But the system of competition that we shall produce will be fair for generators—National Power, PowerGen and the substantial new independent generators which we expect quickly to come into the market. Far from announcing the death knell of nuclear power, the proposal that I have put before the House today is the best way of ensuring a long-term future for nuclear power in this country.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sure that I do not need to repeat what I have already said about the emergency debate. Bearing in mind that there will be other


opportunities to ask questions, I will allow questions on this statement to continue until 4.30, when we will move on to the next statement.

Mr. David Howell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he has taken a courageous and sensible decision today, which will pave the way for the successful privatisation of the electricity industry—I hope without any further difficulties, despite the fact that Opposition Members have been opposed to the plan all along? Does he accept that questions now arise about the structure of the generating industry as it stands? Does he recall that the structure was designed, on advice, to carry some of the risks of the nuclear programme? If he is not to do so now, at least in future will he ensure that the Government will not stand in the way of some evolution and change in the structure of the generating industry, to get away from the pattern of one very large generating firm and one very small generating firm, which may not be ideal for the future?

Mr. Wakeham: Obviously, my right hon. Friend, with his experience in these matters, must be listened to carefully by all hon. Members. I have said that I have no proposals to change the basis of the allocation between National Power and PowerGen, but I shall want to see that a proper competitive market is developing, not just because of the position of those two companies but because an essential part of the privatisation is the development of a substantial new element of independent generators, who must see that they are competing in a fair marketplace.

Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Secretary of State aware that, in his statement, he has simultaneously destroyed the case for privatisation, undermined the case for nuclear power by admitting that it is much more expensive, and retrospectively destroyed the Government's war against the mining industry, which he today admitted can generate electricity much more cheaply than the nuclear industry can?
Is he aware also of the unspoken part of his statement, which is that, if cheap coal can be imported from South Africa through the proposed new Humberside ports, the miners can be pressed yet again from another source? That explains the Prime Minister's refusal to join other Commonwealth leaders in taking sanctions against South Africa.

Mr. Wakeham: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's position. It was he, after all, who announced to the House that the option for PWRs was to be established in the United Kingdom. He said:
Nor does anybody doubt that there will be a nuclear component in our future energy policy and that it will probably be a growing one".—[Official Report, 2 December 1977; Vol. 940, c. 973.]
It is inevitable that I would have that to hand in case the right hon. Gentleman said anything.
There is a more important question, and I hope that those who are concerned about the future of the coal industry, as I am, will recognise that British Coal has an important future as a supplier of fuel, and will continue to have it. It must recognise, however, that the competition that it has to face is not primarily from imported coal. Instead, it is from natural gas and oil, and it must be a competitive coal industry.

Mr. Michael Jack: In thanking my right hon. Friend for clarifying the Government's commitment to the nuclear industry, may I ask him on behalf of the 3,000 nuclear workers in my constituency when the plans for the future of the Magnox stations will be available, when the details of the remedial works on the AGRs will be available, and when he will be able to advise British Nuclear Fuels plc about the future of its £123 million investment in the PWR fuel plant?

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the concerns that my hon. Friend has expressed. There is nothing that I can say today particularly, other than that I recognise the concerns and that we shall make whatever statements are possible as soon as they are possible.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the Secretary of State take it from me that he has much for which to thank his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson)? In the circumstances, he has at least had the sense and wisdom to accept the advice that his predecessor was too arrogant to listen to during the proceedings in Committee on the privatisation Bill.
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House that he recognises that the flotation is now in such a shambles that it must be delayed until clarity emerges? Will he say what obligations have been made to Westinghouse for the PWRs that are now being cancelled, and the cost that will fall on the taxpayer as a result of that decision? Will he accept that there is a real risk that state-subsidised nuclear power will dump privately generated alternative forms of electricity, and that he needs to allay that fear? Finally, will he acknowledge that this is the beginning of the end of nuclear power?

Mr. Wakeham: No, I would not acknowledge that for one minute. I believe that this is the best policy for the future of nuclear power in the situation in which we find ourselves. The hon. Gentleman is wrong when he casts doubt on whether the privatisation of the electricity supply industry can be achieved during this Parliament. I believe that this will substantially alleviate the difficulties that we have to overcome to achieve that object.

Mr. Bruce: Will it help?

Mr. Wakeham: There is no question but that this policy will make the job easier. There are still other matters to be dealt with.
As for the orders that have or have not been placed in accordance with the CEGB's proposals, they are a matter primarily for the board. I have no knowledge of any decisions of that sort.

Sir Ian Lloyd: Since, in my humble judgment, it will be perceived within the decade on both sides of the House that the future of the country depends on its success, may I first wish the new nuclear company and John Collier every success? May I welcome he Government's decision to maintain the nuclear option, as all evidence reaching us about the greenhouse effect suggests that there is no other realistic option?
Will the price be essentially determined by fossil fuel generators, even when their prices rise, as they are bound to do, when vast additional costs are imposed on fossil fuel stations to meet clean air conditions? Finally, does the revision of decommissioning costs—which were elaborately discussed in Lord Marshall's paper on 6 December, and


which amount to between £8 billion and £12 billion—lie at the heart of my right hon. Friend's decision to revise the plan?

Mr. Wakeham: The position is considerably more complicated than can be dealt with in a short parliamentary answer. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for the nuclear industry and his deep interest in it. We have not yet determined the level of the fossil fuel levy, but all these decisions will tend to make it lower rather than higher, certainly in the short term. Decommissioning will be dealt with in the state-owned nuclear company, and therefore will not present the difficulties we have had previously in trying to negotiate arrangements between the private and the public sectors.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Is the Secretary of State aware that, if the Government had not refused to listen to the advice of the Energy Select Committee, he would not be at the Dispatch Box making this statement today? Having taken such a major decision, he must surely be in a position to tell the House what will be the cost to the public purse of generating 20 per cent. of electricity by nuclear power. If he cannot tell the House that cost, does that mean that, like everyone else, he does not know and has been scratching in the dark, and that, for purely dogmatic reasons, he is pushing forward with nuclear power whatever the cost?

Mr. Wakeham: No. Had the hon. Gentleman listened, he would have heard me tell the House that the state-owned nuclear power company's successor for the nuclear element of the CEGB will be a cash-positive company and will earn profits, not make losses. As both sides of the House must recognise, we have made a substantial investment in nuclear power. It is producing returns, and it should finance the cost of the Sizewell B project, with which we wish to continue because we believe it to be an essential part of maintaining the nuclear option.

Mr. John Hannam: Does my right hon. Friend accept that he has made the correct decision, given the emergence of hitherto concealed information about the true costs of nuclear power? Does he share my concern that, for many years, including those when the Labour Government were in office, figures came out of the electricity supply industry that did not bear a true relationship to the costs of nuclear power? Therefore, will he pay careful regard to any figures that the CEGB is now producing on future costs?

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is right. One of the difficulties with which we have had to deal has been that the costs of nuclear power remained hidden throughout nationalisation, and it was only the preparations for privatisation that brought them to light. I am not criticising anyone in particular for that, but it was only on 11 October that I finally managed to obtain the figures that I needed to make this decision, having pressed very hard for them from the moment that I took up office.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I welcome the decision to establish a new national nuclear corporation, and I join the hon. Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) in wishing it success. Nevertheless, has not the right hon. Gentleman, with a number of decisions, placed

a huge question mark over the future of the industry, which I have always supported—first, by running down the fast breeder reactor programme and secondly, by in effect curtailing the development of new nuclear stations, which some Labour Members want to be constructed? What is the future of the nuclear industry under this Government?

Mr. Wakeham: The future of Britain's nuclear industry will be decided finally in 1994. I hope that by that time it will be possible to produce nuclear energy economically.

Sir Trevor Skeet: Having listened to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State enumerate many of the arguments that I put forward in Committee and on Report, is it not a great pity that the Government did not accept my amendments? But having said that, and looking further into the future, when the price of coal rights itself and the price of oil goes up in about five or six years, will not nuclear energy come into its own and blossom forth in the economy?

Mr. Wakeham: I know my hon. Friend's point of view, and I do not deny him his moment of self-congratulation, particularly after his recent stunning victory in the country. He is entitled to be proud of himself. I hope that the future will be what we would wish it to be—that after we review these matters in 1994 we will be able and will want to develop our nuclear industry to produce economic nuclear power.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Leader of the House aware that, when the Bill was introduced by the previous Secretary of State for Energy, it included many items that will not now be acted upon? Is it not arguable that the Act is now full of hybridity in the sense that the nuclear element has now been taken out of it? Should not that matter be examined, since Parliament has been cheated? Will the right hon. Gentleman also take into account the fact that, now that we have reached a watershed in nuclear power and other forms of energy, it would make a lot of sense to stop the pit closure programme, to say that the CEGB's coal allocation should be increased from 60 million tonnes to 75 million tonnes, that coal imports should be stopped and that the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill should be dropped?

Mr. Wakeham: I am glad that, as Leader of the House, I made such an impression on the hon. Gentleman that he does not realise that I have given up that job. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. The steps that we are taking conform completely with the Electricity Act 1989, so no further legislation is required.

Mr. Peter Rost: Is not the most important and painful lesson to be learned from my right hon. Friend's sensible and realistic decision the fact that nuclear electricity is uneconomic and produced at a high cost only in Britain, not in those many other countries that have done the job sensibly, and mostly in the private sector?

Mr. Wakeham: Absolutely; my hon. Friend is right. There are many examples of the economic production of nuclear power in many other countries.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): Can the Secretary of State clarify one matter for the House? Since the Government will not now underwrite the cost of the nuclear sector into the future, will the PWR stations at


Hinkley, Wylfa and Sizewell C go ahead, and does his announcement on the extension of the life of the Magnox stations have an implication for Wylfa A? It is important for my constituents and the House to know the answer.

Mr. Wakeham: We are looking at all the Magnox stations with the experts concerned and the nuclear installations inspectorate, and decisions will be made as soon as possible.
The hon. Gentleman's other question is extremely important, and I hope that he will understand the answer. Under the law as it stands, I have a quasi-judicial role in determining any matters put to me by the inspector at any of the inquiries. It is for the CEGB to make an application, and for inspectors to recommend. I should be doing the hon. Gentleman's constituents a disservice if I expressed any opinions whatever.

Dr. Michael Clark: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Conservative Members welcome his decision? It is the right decision, and always was.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the new nuclear company will be a centre of nuclear excellence, providing the public with confidence in the nuclear industry and ensuring that the industry has a future? Does he also agree that, without the rigours of privatisation, the true cost of nuclear electricity might never have come to light?

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is right. He is also right to pay tribute to the dedicated staff who have been involved in the nuclear power industry in this country. We are very fortunate that Mr. Collier has agreed to take over the job of chairman of the new company, and I believe that it has a very good future.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. When we debate this matter subsequently, I shall seek to give priority to hon. Members whom I have not been able to call today.

Electricity Privatisation (Scotland)

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the future of the electricity supply industry in Scotland.
The House heard earlier today a statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, describing the continuing uncertainties over the costs and longer-term liabilities associated with nuclear power. Those uncertainties are also relevant to the Government's proposals for the privatisation of the electricity supply industry in Scotland. I have therefore reassessed my plans for the restructuring and privatisation of the Scottish industry, and wish to inform the House of my conclusions.
Hon. Members will be aware of the important role that nuclear power plays in the Scottish system. The AGR stations at Torness and Hunterston B represent 25 per cent. of the generating capacity held by the Scottish boards. Hunterston A Magnox station is now approaching the end of its useful life, and is scheduled for closure in the near future. The SSEB's nuclear stations have an excellent record of safe performance, and I commend the management and staff of the board for their achievement in constructing and operating them.
Despite that successful operational performance, the Government have had to examine carefully the future cost uncertainties associated with the nuclear operations in Scotland, as elsewhere in the United Kingdom. After close consultation with the industry and our financial advisers, we have concluded that the full flotation could not be successfully achieved without wide-ranging and unequivocal indemnity from Government for future cost escalations. We do not consider that it would he in the public interest to confer such indemnity, and have therefore decided that the nuclear enterprise in Scotland should remain in the public sector.
We had already proposed that the nuclear assets should be held by a separate company, Scottish Nuclear Ltd. That company will now remain publicly owned, and will be responsible for the continued safe operation of the stations. The staff now engaged in nuclear matters will be employed by the new company, thus ensuring the retention of the essential expertise required to maintain safe and efficient operation of the stations for the continuing benefit of Scottish consumers. The company will enter into contracts for the sale of its output with the Scottish supply companies, Scottish Power and Hydro Electric. It is certainly our intention that Scottish consumers should continue to benefit from the large investment in nuclear capacity.
The industry north and south of the border has been investigating the economic case for upgrading the capacity of the interconnector between Scotland and England. There is a further opportunity, which we must now explore, to export Scottish output to England and Wales, thus contributing to the diversity of supplies there, and maximising the overall economic use of these major assets to the benefit of all concerned.
The greater proportion of the Scottish industry will be privatised.

Mr. Norman Hogg: The showrooms. [Laughter.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Time is very short this afternoon.

Mr. Rifkind: This will consist of two highly successful transmissesion, distribution and supply businesses with strong local identities and a modern and diverse portfolio of generating stations. They will own around 75 per cent. of generating capacity and employ 14,000 of the total 16,000 staff in the Scottish electricity industry. It is our intention to prepare these companies for privatisation within the current Parliament, and my Department is assessing with our professional advisers and in consultation with the industry the detailed implications of the Government's decision to withhold the nuclear assets from the sale.
There will need to be detailed discussions with regard to the proper relationship of the nuclear company with the other parts of the industry. These will be made easier by our previous decision to place all of the nuclear assets in a separate company. I shall wish to ensure that the revised arrangements have no adverse effects on the economy and efficiency of operation of the industry in Scotland and that there will be no adverse implications for tariffs as a result of these changes.
It will be central to our plans to safeguard the position of the existing staff engaged in the nuclear company, and in particular their pension rights will be protected. The Government will also ensure that these staff will be able to benefit from the flotation of the other parts of the industry. We shall be discussing the detailed implementation of these proposals with the management and the trade unions. The Scottish nuclear company can look forward to a successful and productive future working in close co-operation with the other electricity companies in Scotland.
I believe that a proper and carefully balanced mixture of private and public ownership—[Laughter.]— will achieve our objectives and be of real benefit to electricity consumers. The nuclear enterprise will continue to play an important role in delivering a safe, reliable and competitively priced supply of electricity to the people of Scotland for many years to come. The two private sector companies, Scottish Power and Hydro Electric, will flourish in the private sector and deliver an improved service to their customers in the new environment.

Mr. Donald Dewar: This must be one of the most humiliating statements that the House has heard from a Scottish Office Minister for a very long time. The Secretary of State was extremely wise to try to turn it into something of a joke. The Government's central strategy for the electricity industry lies in ruins. The Secretary of State's attempt to present this shambles as a minor policy adjustment is as pathetic as it is unconvincing. In fairness to him, he seemed to be enjoying the joke when he argued that the AGRs represent only 25 per cent. of generating capacity. Is he afraid to face the fact that 60 per cent. of all electricity sold in Scotland comes from nuclear capacity and that for the South of Scotland electricity board it represents, in its latest available balance sheet, at £2·048 billion, some 80 per cent. of assets? What we have now is a rickety structure cobbled together in panic in a futile attempt to save face. Is not the truth that the nuclear arithmetic has gone horribly wrong and that the heart has been ripped out of the whole scheme?
How can the Minister have the brass neck to claim that he believes in

a proper and carefully balanced mixture of private and public ownership
when he has spent the last year denying in the strongest possible terms that there is any place for the nuclear industry in the public sector? Does he remember writing to me less than a year ago to say that
There are no grounds for suggesting that the successful privatisation of the industry will be jeopardised by risks associated with the nuclear operating costs"?
Does he remember that in this House last April his Minister of State, the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang), expressed his unshakable confidence
that the Scottish industry, including its substantial nuclear assets, can look forward to a bright commercial future."—[Official Report, 5 April 1989; Vol. 150, c. 236.]
I can only say to him that what he has announced today is neither proper nor balanced. It is a mixture, which many people would describe as a dog's breakfast.
Why has the Minister remained in such a state of ignorance, despite the persistent and wholly justified attack by the Opposition on these matters and the specific warning from the chairman of the South of Scotland electricity board in December 1988 that under the then current arrangements his company would be unsaleable? Why has it taken so long to discover—or, even more damaging, to admit—the painful truth? It is a tale of incompetence and dither.
How will Scottish Nuclear price the power that it produces? Is that possible at all if it is impossible to put a figure on the ever-escalating costs of decommissioning and reprocessing? The Secretary of State for Energy talked about the price being consistent with earning a return appropriate to public sector bodies. How does the Secretary of State intend to build into that pricing structure the end costs of decommissioning? Does the Secretary of State now agree with the Department of Energy that, if that is done, the true cost of nuclear power is at least twice that of conventionally produced power?
Is it not true that the whole exercise is designed so that the taxpayer will be left with the liabilities and the investors with the profits? Is the Secretary of State confident that Scottish Power and Hydro Electric can stand on their own? Will they survive as independent entities without the nuclear generating capacity, which the chairman of the SSEB recently described as the mainstay of his board's finances?
What has happened to the Minister's proud boast that the strength of his specially tailored Scottish solution was the merging of generation and distribution? Are not those claims now a joke? Does not today's statement show the folly of Ministers meddling in a complex industry that they clearly do not understand? If the so-called sale excludes the core of the industry, would it not be more honest, and more in the public interest, for the Secretary of State to admit his error and to abandon the whole misconceived exercise?

Mr. Rilkind: The hon. Gentleman seems not to have studied the industry terribly carefully. At the moment, approximately 16,000 people are employed in the Scottish electricity industry. Only 1,800 of them—about 10 per cent.—are employed in the nuclear industry. Some 90 per cent. of employees and 75 per cent. of the industry's capacity will go into the private sector. All the hon. Gentleman can take refuge in is the fact that the historic book value shows—not surprisingly, as Torness has only


recently been completed—that a high proportion of assets on a historic book basis are of the kind to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about people and the capacity to generate power, I should have thought that he would attach more importance to the fact that 75 per cent. of capacity and 90 per cent. of the employees will go into the privatised industry. Frankly, that accounts for more than the core of the industry.
The hon. Gentleman asks why that has come about, and why the Government did not have this view some months ago. One of the consequences of privatisation, whether in the electricity industry or in any other industry, is that it is only when one is contemplating privatisation that the industry and the public address themselves to the costs incurred by nationalised industries. Electricity privatisation revealed the true cost of many of the hidden subsidies and unknown factors that had always been there.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the views of the SSEB and the Scottish electricity industry. I remind him that the SSEB and the Hydro Board were fully behind the Government's proposals to privatise the whole industry. In the light of the information that is now available, they have said that they believe that the Government are right to go ahead in the way in which we are now proposing.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked me about the way in which pricing would be determined. I said in my statement that today's announcement would have no adverse consequences for tariffs. The Government are committed to the principle of tariff continuity. [Interruption.] When the contracts between Scottish Nuclear and the two private sector companies are entered into, the pricing which will be agreed will enable the tariff consequences to be the same as they were under our original proposals.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall allow questions on the statement to run until 5 o'clock and then I shall call the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) to move his motion. I intend to give precedence to hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies because this statement refers to Scotland.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Whereas the Secretary of State for Energy has the excuse that he has been dropped into this midden, the Secretary of State for Scotland has no such alibi. He has been responsible for this tacky business right through from beginning to end.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that his announcement today means that the two power stations in my constituency, Cockenzie and Torness, will be under totally separate ownership and management? One will be in the public sector, the other in the private sector. I give a guarded welcome to the fact that the climbdown means that Torness will be kept under public control.
Will the Secretary of State tell us what he will do to restore coal production capacity to meet future needs in Scotland? Will he comment on the report that failure to recommission refuelling machinery at Torness may lead to the two reactors there being shut down throughout most of this winter?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is correct. It was always intended that Torness would be under Scottish Nuclear Ltd. and Cockenzie under Scottish Power. I am happy to confirm that.
In my statement, I gave details of the latest situation and its implications for coal. It has long been understood that the best prospects for coal depend on the opportunities that the Scottish industry finds to export surplus capacity. I said that the cumulative effect of what has been announced by the Government underlines the need to upgrade the interconnector, the purpose of which is to maximise the export of surplus Scottish electricity. Today's announcement is helpful to the Scottish coal industry's prospects.
In view of the enormously complex arrangements necessary for the safe handling of fuel in nuclear power stations, it is essential to ensure that every aspect of its operation is fully tested during the commissioning process at Torness. I understand that full commissioning of the fuel route is expected to take place in time to allow refuelling to occur in January, subject to all the necessary steps being completed to allow safe, reliable operation of the plant.

Sir Hector Monro: For clarification's sake, would my right hon. and learned Friend say what will be the status of Chapelcross nuclear power station, which is in my constituency? It is owned by British Nuclear Fuels, but it has to sell power to Scotland or to England. Is my right hon. and learned Friend certain that that condition will be retained, in the interests of the 650 employees there? Subject to inspection by the Health and Safety Executive, will Chapelcross have a life of at least 10 more years?

Mr. Rifkind: I am happy to assure my hon. Friend that today's announcement has no implications for Chapelcross. I recall that it has successfully agreed a contract which enables it to export some electricity south of the border.

Mrs. Ray Michie: The Minister should have ended his statement by saying, "Three cheers for the mixed economy." Does he agree that everything he has said this afternoon has vindicated our repeated assertions that privatisation of the electricity industry is unworkable in Scotland, and that the Government's pretence of cheap nuclear power is in tatters? Can he say who will pay for the upgrading of the interconnector between Scotland and England? If those boards are to be privatised, when will flotation take place?
Does the Secretary of State agree that this is another shambles created by the Government and that the whole idea should be scrapped forthwith?

Mr. Rifkind: I am happy to confirm that the flotation will still take place in this Parliament. We have no reason to review its timing. It has always been intended that the upgrading of the interconnector would be the responsibility of the relevant companies north and south of the border. It is a commercial arrangement whereby they will sell surplus capacity to distribution companies in England, so the financing arrangements will not be affected by today's announcement.

Mr Bill Walker: My right hon. and learned Friend is to be congratulated on reaching what must have been a tricky and difficult decision. Does he agree that his statement clearly reveals how much England and Scotland are interrelated in energy matters and that one cannot consider them in isolation? The interconnector is a vital and important part of the entire operation, enabling Scotland to continue to sell its produce to


consumers in England. One of the most important factors in my right hon. and learned Friend's statement is that a substantial part of the Scottish electricity generating industry is being taken out of the public sector borrowing requirement. Those of us in the hydro areas will welcome that because the hydro company will be very viable and profitable.

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is right about the hydro company and Scottish Power being extremely profitable and viable companies. As for the interconnector, my right hon. Friend's announcement about the future of the PWR programme south of the border enhances the prospects for successful exports of surplus electricity from the Scottish electricity industry, and we shall need to address that.

Mr. David Lambie: May I remind the Minister that, although the Government intend to privatise the water industry in England and Wales, they are not doing the same in Scotland? Given his announcement today that more than 60 per cent. of the sales of electricity in Scotland will be from plants remaining within the public sector, is it not time that the Secretary of State for Scotland spoke up for Scotland and stated that a public SSEB should remain and should compete on favourable terms with a private industry in England and Wales?

Mr. Rifkind: I am afraid—no, I am not afraid, I am delighted—that the hon. Gentleman's views are not the views of the Scottish electricity industry. The SSEB is looking forward to privatisation and has been encouraging the Government to bring it forward as quickly as possible.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the Secretary of State accept that many of us never cease to be amazed by his chameleon-like qualities as he moves from one policy change to another? In that context, can he advise us what has happened since his statement to the Select Committee that he regarded nuclear energy as likely to be much cheaper than any fossil-fuel-generated energy and dismissed any questions about the high costs of decommissioning and reprocessing? What has happened in the intervening months to make him change his mind? In regard to the interconnector, can he tell us exactly what proportion of the investment will be paid for by Scottish consumers?

Mr. Rifkind: On the last point, I cannot inform the hon. Lady as that will be a matter to be discussed between the various companies north and south of the border. As for the hon. Lady's earlier remarks, the question does not concern the precise level of costs, but the uncertainty of not knowing what the costs of decommissioning will be, given that decommissioning may not take place for many years to come, although clearly an investor in the industry would need to take that into account. That is why the industry sought a total indemnity on these matters and the Government took the view that that would not be responsible or in the interests of the taxpayer.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that his announcement and the announcement by the Secretary of State for Energy today spell disaster for Dounreay and the jobs there? Is it not correct that now that we appear to have decided not to

proceed with pressurised water reactors and we have already decided to cut back on the fast breeder programme there will be no research work available at Dounreay, Winfrith in my constituency or Harwell? Will he give an assurance that those matters had been considered before today's statements were made?

Mr. Rifkind: I do not accept that there will be consequences at Dounreay to which my hon. Friend refers. The research in which the staff at Dounreay are involved relates to matters other than the PWR programme south of the border or the public or private ownership of the electricity industry. Of course, Dounreay has particular problems and difficulties which are known to the House, but I do not believe that they have been increased as a result of today's announcements.

Mr. Gavin Strang: Is it not misleading for the Secretary of State to continue to insist that the South of Scotland electricity board favours privatisation when he knows that at least 90 per cent. of the work force and the management are totally opposed to it? Given that it must throw current plans into total disarray, is it not irresponsible to insist on suggesting that the industry should be privatised before the next election?

Mr. Rifkind: I do not accept for a moment the hon. Gentleman's premise. When the Government originally announced that Hunterston A, the Magnox station, would not be privatised, the staff were anxious to be assured that they would have the same opportunities to take part in the flotation as staff elsewhere in the industry. That flies in the face of the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: As an admirer of the technical achievements of the SSEB, referring to paragraph 4 of the statement, may I ask what figure the financial advisers have given to the Secretary of State's wide-ranging and unequivocal indemnity? People who talk about a wide-ranging indemnity must have a figure in their brief or it is meaningless.

Mr. Rifkind: On the contrary, it is precisely because that figure could not be identified—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] We are talking about potential decommissioning costs which may not be incurred for 100 years. Precisely because such a figure could not be identified a total indemnity was requested from Government irrespective of what the figure might turn out to be. Neither the financial advisers nor anyone else has sought to put a figure on that sum. Precisely because of that uncertainty an unqualified indemnity was requested and for the same reason it would be improper to give one.

Mr. John McAllion: The Secretary of State will be aware that the reorganisation of the hydro-electric board has reached a very advanced stage in the proposed merger between the Dundee and South Caledonian divisions. That reorganisation is being carried out on the assumption that the hydro-electricty will have a nuclear component. Can the Secretary of State make any assessment of the likely impact of his announcement this afternoon on that reorganisation and the level of employment within Hydro Electric?

Mr. Rifkind: I have had one discussion with the chairman of the Hydro-Electric Board who does not appear to believe that any significant problems will arise as a result of today's announcement. That is a matter of some


reassurance. Obviously we will keep an eye on that matter to see whether it needs to be revised, but that was the view expressed at this stage.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I wish to ask about the spent fuel from the advanced gas-cooled reactors. My constituents will welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's emphasis on the fact that health and safety will be paramount in AGRs. Will he assure me that the same safety criteria will be borne in mind when storing the used fuel from AGRs, and will encourage storage at each individual AGR site rather than allowing it to be brought to Heysham for storage?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend refers to wider issues, but I can assure her that the Government will continue to give maximum priority to ensuring that safety requirements are complied with fully in any decisions that are reached on these matters.

Mr. Ron Brown: Does the Secretary of State accept that the part of the country that he and I represent, the Firth of Forth is heavily contaminated by radioactivity? That has been confirmed by the river purification board, whose comments are important to me, to the Secretary of State and to the people who use the Firth of Forth. It is so bad sometimes that even the fish swim around in lead-lined bikinis. That speaks volumes and shows that Torness is not so clean as you suggest. Does the Secretary of State accept that you should close down not just Torness but all the nuclear stations in Scotland——

Mr. Speaker: Briefly.

Mr. Brown: You should open up the entire industry, which is environmentally friendly in comparison—[Interruption.] Let us face it——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has put his question.

Mr. Brown: That would be preferable, and, if the Secretary of State understands Scotland, he knows that.

Mr. Rifkind: I do not accept that the river Forth is polluted in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. The fact that I have caught and consumed fish from the river Forth and survived to tell the tale is an adequate response to the hon. Gentleman. All the evidence suggests that Torness has a superb safety record. The hon. Gentleman and his constituents can be reassured on that point.

Mr. Brian Wilson: Is not the true ideological motivation of electricity privatisation revealed if jobs and the social interest are to be sold off—the SSEB vans and Hydro Board dams—in spite of the fact that the substance of the industry is unsaleable? Will the Secretary of State assure the House that flotation, if that is not too strong a word, in Scotland will not be forced to the head of the queue to prevent the embarrassment of the Department of Energy? Has the Secretary of State's sterling defence of the mixed economy been cleared today with his loyal junior Minister, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth)? In the light of this latest fiasco and the undermining of his credibility, should not the Secretary of State consider resignation?

Mr. Rifkind: I am always cheered up when the hon. Gentleman speaks from the Dispatch Box. As to whether the substance of the industry is being floated, I remind the hon. Gentleman that total generating capacity in Scotland is 11,000 MW, of which only 2,800 MW is derived from nuclear power. On that basis, I am entitled to say that three quarters of the capacity will be privately floated. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman should welcome these matters, as will those who work in the industry.

Mr. Speaker: I now call the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook)——

Mr. Roger King: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order arises from Prime Minister's Question Time. You, Mr. Speaker, may recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) asked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister whether she had received any complaints from London Weekend Television staff about the difficulty of getting the Leader of the Opposition to appear on its programme——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The whole House knows the rules. The Prime Minister must be asked questions on subjects for which she is responsible. The House could hear that that was not a matter for which she had responsibility.

Mr. King: With respect, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was asked whether she had been approached in that way. Surely she is entitled——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I can only offer hon. Members an opportunity to put a question to the Prime Minister. It is up to them to get their question in order, but that question was not in order.

Ambulance Dispute

Mr. Robin Cook: I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.
Leave having been given on Wednesday 8 November under Standing Order No. 20 to discuss:
The current state of the ambulance dispute.

Mr. Cook: Every hon. Member in the Chamber must be aware of the gravity of the situation against which we debate the ambulance dispute. The dispute has continued for eight weeks, during which time it has affected every community in Britain. In London, it has arrived at a crisis as a result of the suspension of ambulance crews. I learned on my way to the Chamber that, in the course of today, throughout other parts of the country management have issued warnings of similar suspensions. The position in London today may be the position elsewhere in Britain by the end of the week.
In London, since yesterday, emergency cover is being provided by 50 Army vehicles and 53 police vehicles. I have no doubt that those who man those vehicles will give of their best. It is clear from their comments that they are in no doubt that their best will not be good enough to avoid the risk of tragedy. No hon. Member can have watched last night's television bulletins without concern when they saw shots of attempts to resuscitate a dying man with cardiac arrest in the back seat of a police car as it sped through central London, or of a woman with a spinal injury being manhandled in and out of the rear doors of a police car. The penalty for error in lifting a person with a spinal injury incorrectly can be paralysis for life.
The first question that the Secretary of State must answer when he responds to the debate is, why has he chosen to rely on these makeshift arrangements for emergency cover when there are trained ambulance staff at every ambulance station in London ready and eager to take emergency calls? Indeed, throughout last night they responded to emergency calls, because they continued to receive them from the Army, which called ambulance staff for the cases that they could not handle, from the fire brigade, which asked them to attend emergency incidents, and from hospitals, which asked them to attend for patients who needed to move urgently.
That was the situation throughout the night, but this morning there was a fresh development. The central control room of the London ambulance service started putting through selected emergency calls to ambulance stations and to the very staff suspended by the London ambulance service, who are not being paid by it but who on every occasion responded to them.
Those calls show how thinly stretched the temporary cover for emergencies is in London, and the response of ambulance staff exposes how unfair the Secretary of State was on Tuesday when he accused them of pretending and posturing in waiting for emergency calls.
The Secretary of State has justified suspending those staff on the basis of the 14 points of the work to rule. I have been through the 14 points and can advise the House that most of them have nothing to do with the emergency service. Some include matters such as a ban on paperwork.
The debate on whether it is possible to maintain emergency cover has focused on the point in the work to rule relating to the use of radiophones. There is no ban in

the 14 points on radiophones for emergency use. The point at dispute is of such technicality that I find it breathtaking that grown men should have used it as the issue on which to suspend ambulance cover in London. Management are insisting that crews should press a button on radiophones to inform not the controller but the computer of their position so that control can select the ambulance to attend the emergency.
The staff side is offering to listen to every emergency case announced on open call, which would enable all ambulances to hear the emergency call and therefore enable the nearest one to radio in and respond to it. Mr. Spry, who is manager of one of the London regions, yesterday described this as a Mickey-Mouse service. That service is exactly the system that operated in London until eight months ago. That service, which Mr. Spry described as a Mickey-Mouse service, is precisely the system still used in almost every other ambulance service in Britain. Why, if that system is good enough for Manchester, Newcastle or Liverpool in normal times, would management rather call in the Army than see the system used in London?
There is a further dimension that makes it even more baffling and difficult to find a rational answer to that question. London ambulance staff have been suspended over a dispute aboout how they use their radiophones. They have been replaced by Army vehicles that cannot use their radiophones because they are on the wrong frequency for police control. There is no rational justification for suspending ambulance staff for using their radios in a manner that is the normal working method throughout the rest of Britain and replacing them with a system that has no radiophones.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cook: I shall give way in a second.
The only possible explanation why management have taken that decision must be that they chose to escalate the dispute.
The second question that the Secretary of State must answer when he responds to the debate is, was that their decision, or was it his decision, to take this gamble with emergency cover in London?

Mr. Sayeed: On Tuesday's 6 o'clock news on television, Mr. Roger Poole said:
Our members are prepared to operate 999 services with no qualification whatsoever.
On the same programme yesterday, ambulanceman Chris Cosham admitted that London ambulance staff were not operating existing agreed radio procedures and informing the ambulance controllers when they completed an accident or emergency task.

Mr. Cook: rose——

Mr. Sayeed: No. That point was defended by Mr. Poole——

Mr. Cook: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) seems to be making a very long intervention.

Mr. Sayeed: If I am allowed to complete it, I shall not be much longer, Mr. Speaker. Will the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) ask Mr. Roger Poole to keep to the commitment that he made on Tuesday night, or does the


hon. Gentleman condone the attempt by the National Union of Public Employees to undermine and deceive the British public?

Mr. Cook: The House is in some difficulty, in that it has some two hours in which to crush a three-hour debate. If that is to be the length of intervention by Conservative Members, it will not be possible to give way again. There is no contradiction——

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): The hon. Gentleman——

Mr. Frank Cook: Shut up.

Mr. Robin Cook: If the Secretary of State will allow me, I cannot respond to—[Interruption]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Bob Cryer: It is the Secretary of State——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to settle down. Interventions of that kind do not help us.

Mr. Cook: There is no contradiction between the two statements produced by the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed). The ambulance staff are prepared to respond to every 999 call in precisely the way they responded up until eight months ago and in precisely the way that every other ambulance service in Britain responds to them.
This morning, the Secretary of State and I had a dummy run for this debate on radio. The right hon. and learned Gentleman justified the suspensions in London on the basis that the ambulance staff were now not moving non-emergency cases. The one example which he shared with the nation of such non-emergency cases was that of cancer patients going for radiotherapy. I have with me the union instructions on the restrictions on non-emergency cases. They list 12 separate exemptions from the ban. Exemption No. 7 is "all cancer-related patients".

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: rose——

Mr. Cook: It is explicit. All cancer-related patients are exempted. The Secretary of State has 10 minutes before he gets up to respond to the debate. He has all his officials in the Box. I challenge him when he gets up to name one ambulance station in London that has refused to move patients needing radiotherapy.

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Jeremy Hayes: rose——

Mr. Cook: I am content to wait until the Secretary of State gets up to respond to the debate. That will give him 10 minutes to find the answer.

Mr. Hayes: rose——

Mr. Cook: No, I shall not give way again. I am anxious to proceed. The hon. Member for Bristol, East took up the time of three interventions.
I have no doubt that, when the Secretary of State gets up, he will wish to accuse me of taking my brief from the unions. He has done that in every previous debate, and it would be extraordinary if he put that gibe aside in this debate. I am not ashamed to inform the House that, over the past eight weeks, I have regularly met union officials.

I am not ashamed to say also that I have listened to what they said to me about the dispute. I would have more respect for the way in which the Secretary of State has discharged his duties if in those eight weeks he had met the staff side just once. I ask the Secretary of State this third question: will he now meet the staff side? Is he prepared to sit down with the staff side to see whether they can find a solution to this crisis?
As well as meeting those union officials, I have met many serving ambulance men and women and ambulance officers. I have been struck by the commitment that those staff show to their job. Those people are perhaps sadly out of place in the brave new enterprise society that Conservative Members want to create. Overwhelmingly, they are people with intelligence and qualifications that would enable them to get better paid jobs, if that was what they were interested in. They have chosen the ambulance service because it gives them satisfaction and a reward for which money alone cannot be a substitute.
There have been plenty of occasions during the past three years when the nation has had the opportunity to observe the commitment of our ambulance staff and the risks that they take in pursuing that commitment. On Tuesday, the House received the report of the Clapham accident. Paragraph 5.19 states:
The Court heard many tributes to the courage, dedication and professionalism of all the emergency services. Having heard the evidence and seen videos of their work at the scene, I wish to endorse the deep sense of appreciation which ran throughout the evidence of passengers on the trains for the outstanding work of the men and women who did so much to ensure a safe, swift and successful operation.
When the Harrods bomb went off, ambulance crews were the only people to remain in the street tending to the wounded and dying when police closed the street because they expected a second bomb. When the aircraft crashed on the motorway, it was the ambulance crews who went into the fuselage at a time when aviation fuel poured from every fractured pipe.
Mr. Brian Murray, one of the ambulance men whom I have met recently and who attended the Brighton bombing in 1985, is observing this debate from a place that I cannot draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker. The question that he will want answered is, why is he now offered an increase of 6·5 per cent., which the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) today managed to describe as nearly 10 per cent.? There is no London weighting for Mr. Murray—he lives in Sussex. He has been offered less than the rate of inflation. He is being asked to take a cut in real pay. In truth, Mr. Murray is not seeking a rise just in line with inflation, and I would not pretend that he is. Mr. Murray wants an increase in line with earnings.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: rose——

Mr. Cook: I shall certainly give way to the hon. Lady.

Mrs. Currie: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy. Many Conservative Members share his belief that the ambulance service is a very good service and all of us owe it a great deal. Nevertheless, does the hon. Gentleman agree that this dispute is not about whether the ambulance service gives us a good service but about who runs the service, the management or the unions, and whether employees who are prepared to take industrial action which will damage patients should get paid more than those employees who will not?

Mr. Cook: This is a dispute about what is the proper rate of pay for the service that we demand of our ambulance staff. That is why it is proper to remind the House of the service and dedication that we require of them.
Since this dispute started, there has not been a major pay settlement as low as 6·5 per cent. In the week in which it started, the Treasury sanctioned a pay award to Inland Revenue staff that gave Inland Revenue typists 10 per cent. and inspectors 14·5 per cent. Since then, British Telecom has settled at 9 per cent. We are told that postmen may be offered 11 per cent. Firemen have settled at 8·6 per cent. The Secretary of State is much given to saying that National Health Service staff settled at 6·5 per cent.—doctors settled at 8 per cent., dentists at 8 per cent., professionals allied to medicine at 7·7 per cent. and administrators, managers and clerical staff for a deal worth 9·5 per cent.
Members of Parliament are to be awarded 10·7 per cent., and hon. Members will know that we are to receive that figure because it has already been granted to middle management in the Civil Service. I do not believe that Members of Parliament need to apologise for parity with the principal grade in the Civil Service, but I do not understand how hon. Members who benefited from that linkage could vote to deny linkage to ambulance staff. The ambulance staff seek linkage with the other two emergency services—the firemen and policemen. They work together daily with them, they share risks with them and they provide medical cover when the other services take those risks.

Mr. Richard Tracey: rose——

Mr. Cook: That is why the fire brigade and the Police Federation fully support the demand of ambulance staff for linkage.
Once upon a time, the demand for linkage had the full support of the Conservative party. In 1978, the present Prime Minister wrote to two ambulance men saying of the emergency services:
All three deserve to have their pay negotiation put outside the arena of industrial dispute by being given firm and automatic linkage".
That letter was written to Terry Wilton and Philip Rowe, two Conservative ambulance men in Somerset who were inspired by the letter to become founder members of the Association of Professional Ambulance Personnel, an association which is pledged not to take industrial action. Terry Wilton and Philip Rowe are now so incensed by the short memories of those in the Conservative party that they are supporting the industrial action by the ambulance service this month.

Mr. Hayes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cook: No, I will not.
The irony of the present dispute is that, in the confrontation between Ministers and unions, Ministers are trying to beat down staff who are clear that they want a formula that will take their pay out of the realm of annual disputes, so that the ambulance service will never again need to be disrupted.
We now come to the central mystery of the dispute. Every attempt that the Secretary of State makes to explain the mystery leaves it more baffling than before. When he responds to the debate, he must say why, if he is so

confident in his case and if he is so convinced that 6·5 per cent. is the just, fair and final offer to ambulance staff, he is so frightened of putting it to arbitration.

Mr. Hayes: rose——

Mr. Cook: The whole country knows that the dispute would stop tonight if the Secretary of State only had the courage to go to arbitration. He does not demonstrate strength by sending in the Army; he demonstrates weakness by running away from arbitration.

Mr. Hayes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cook: I cannot resist the hon. Gentleman tonight.

Mr. Hayes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He has a unique opportunity today to behave in a statesmanlike manner. He has the opportunity because people who are frail, elderly and vulnerable, who may die tonight as a result of this dispute, would like to hear those who have influence with the trade union movement say that no wage dispute is worth the death of an old lady or a child. He has the opportunity to say, "Go back to the negotiating table and talk about structure." The hon. Gentleman is a decent, honourable and caring man. Why does he not go to the National Union of Public Employees and say, "You have peered over the abyss; don't let the inevitable happen."

Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman began with the perfectly fair point that lives are at risk and that this is an extremely grave situation. That is why we pressed for a debate today. If the hon. Gentleman believes that the situation is so grave and important that the House should consider it in a statesmanlike manner, I find it a pity that neither he nor any other Conservative Member supported our application for an emergency debate yesterday. The reason is simple: they know that their case cannot readily be defended.
Every time the Secretary of State is asked why he does not go to arbitration, he replies that he cannot because he decides how much money goes into the National Health Service and he is responsible for how that mony is carved up, so he cannot hand over decisions on that to an outside, independent body.
There is one obvious problem with that logic. Half the staff in the NHS already have access to an independent pay review body. Why should ambulance staff be so different that it is a point of principle that they cannot have access to an independent review? The real problem for the Secretary of State is that, every time he gives that answer to the question about arbitration into the microphone, every listener to the radio set knows that what he means is that he dare not go to arbitration because he knows that any form of arbitration will give the ambulance staff more money. The Secretary of State does not believe that he can convince any independent adjudicator that he is right. If he believes that his case cannot convince anyone else, he cannot really believe it himself.
Over the past three weeks, the Secretary of State has talked himself into a corner from which he cannot escape into arbitration. The House has the opportunity tonight to help him to make that escape. The House can decide tonight whether to prolong the dispute by calling in the Army, or whether to resolve it by calling in the arbitrators. I do not ask only my hon. Friends to join me in the Lobby


for arbitration. I ask every hon. Member who wants to see full ambulance cover restored to his constituency to join us in the Lobby tonight.

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): With the industrial action that we are facing now, especially in London, and with the seriousness of the issues involved. I should have thought that the whole House should be united by bonds of common humanity and concern for the plight of innocent members of the public who are being put at risk by industrial action in a key service. I shall begin by assuming that we are united in that. We should also be united by an overriding concern for the well-being of the National Health Service and all its staff, including those taking industrial action at present, and also for its patients, who look to us especially to guarantee the vital emergency parts of the service.
We all profess to agree on those points, but the massed ranks of Opposition Members are here for a debate about industrial action, which they always find especially attractive. Their attitude to the dispute, judged from what various hon. Members have said from a sedentary position and, by implication, from what the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said, is that if we and the people of London want the ambulance service back fully, we should give the ambulance men the money or whatever they want. That is an unattractive position.
We should consider the claim made by the Whitley council trade unions which are conducting the present dispute. They do not include the Association of Professional Ambulance Personnel, to which the hon. Member for Livingston referred. That is a moderate trade union which disapproves of industrial action. It represents about 20 per cent. of ambulance men, but because of its moderate stance the staff side has never admitted it to the Whitley council. Although some of the trade unions organising sanctions have fewer members, they monopolise the seats of the Whitley council and its negotiations.
The Whitley council trade unions have a claim for a pay increase of 11·1 per cent., with the establishment of a formula for determining future increases as well. The London men are seeking some London weighting above the over 11 per cent. claim that they are presently pursuing and I assume that they are looking for about 12 per cent. or 13 per cent. They have other claims, such as the reintroduction of premium rates for overtime—which they agreed to forgo in 1986—an increase in the standby allowances to bring them into line with those paid to ambulance officers, which management is minded to concede, an increase in annual leave and long service holidays, a reduction in the working week and the introduction of long service pay after five, 10 and 15 years of service. Those claims have not been withdrawn and they add up to more than 20 per cent. although it is the cash claim of more than 11 per cent. that is being pursued at the moment.
The unions are determined to get that claim or something like it by pursuing industrial action. Anyone who believes that in such a difficult situation it is easy for the management of the Health Service to get the service back by giving them a little bit more must reflect on the fact that I am quite confident, as is the management from its contacts with the trade union side, that they are not

taking the action against the people of London to get a little bit more—they are looking for rather a lot more money.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Clarke: No, I will not give way. This is a short debate. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) gave way only a couple of times. When I get on to the radiotelephones, people will want me to give way and there will be no Back-Bench debate if I give way too soon.
The fact that the ambulance men are pursuing their claim through industrial action of such an extreme nature is surprising when we recall that the trade unions were recommending the management's offer some months ago, and that offer was arrived at as a result of negotiation in the Whitley council. A few months ago the union leaders who now say that the offer of 6·5 per cent. is disgraceful, recommended their members to accept such an offer. No Labour Members referred to the inadequacy of a 6·5 per cent. offer then. No Labour Member said then that those vital men should be paid more.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: rose——

Mr. Dave Nellist: rose——

Mr. Clarke: The reason for this noisy demonstration of support from Opposition Members now is that the ambulance men have taken industrial action having rejected the offer on a ballot. However, the trade union leaders who are now organising this action had recommended the 6·5 per cent.

Mr. Skinner: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Clarke: No.
Since the trade union leaders recommended 6·5 per cent., the offer has been improved. The men are being offered more money than their leaders recommended them to accept. The recommendation was not too surprising, nor was the fact that it emerged from the Whitely council. We are talking about a settlement which dates back to April this year.
The 6·5 per cent. offer must be set beside the 6·8 per cent. awards to the nurses and the Army. Most of the soldiers taking over ambulance men's duties today are less well paid than the ambulance men. Hon. Members accepted 6·7 per cent. and 160,000 National Health Service staff, including the ancillary workers represented by the same trade unions, also settled for 6·5 per cent. as a result of sensible negotiations.
After the 6·5 per cent. was rejected, the offer was improved—in particular, in London. The offer now, which has been rejected by the unions, is at least 9·3 per cent. for qualified personnel in London. At the moment the whole service in London is closed down because the ambulance men want more than 9·3 per cent. and they are taking industrial action to achieve that.

Mr. Skinner: Give way on that point.

Mr. Clarke: No.
The offer as it stands is worth about £13 a week for qualified staff outside London and about £20 a week for London staff. Back pay is accruing because the offer dates back to April 1989. Therefore, the ambulance men in London have at least £600 back pay waiting for them and the men outside have at least £400.
Labour Members say that that is not enough and that we should give them the money. However, they have not specified how much. They have not commented on the size of the claim—[Interruption.] We know why all these Opposition Members are in the Chamber now. Even the Leader of the Opposition is here. They are lured by the scent of a good strike—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) was heard in comparative silence. Throughout this debate there has been a background of commentary from a sedentary position. Hon. Members should listen to the Minister's speech.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: The Secretary of State for Health mentioned me specifically. If the case that he is making convinces him so absolutely, why is he not willing to let the issue go to arbitration? The Labour party and the ambulance men and women have asked for nothing more.

Mr. Clarke: In the Health Service it is necessary to settle the pay of more than 1 million staff at a level which allows management to strike the right balance between staff pay and the growth of patient services. It is necessary to be fair to all staff in every grade because most of them do vital work in a dedicated way. It is also necessary to have an overall view of how much money will be allowed for pay because some money must be left for the expansion of patient services. It would be an abdication of management's responsibility for it to say that if a group of staff strikes or takes industrial action, it will hand over its responsibility, because of that action, to an outside body to decide how much more staff should get and how far patient services should expand.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Mr. Clarke: If any Government tried to run the National Health Service on the basis that a group which took industrial action against the patients would receive arbitration, they would reproduce the chaos that was produced in 1979 in the Health Service by giving way to every member of staff—[Interruption.] This is a noisy display by Labour Members because they have been drawn here by a strike. I have not seen the Labour Benches so crowded for a health debate for years—[Interruption.] Labour Members have not been drawn here by the National Health Service; they have been drawn here to back the National Union of Public Employees in its industrial action.

Mr. Dykes: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the cumbersome suggestion of arbitration is very much the second option in comparison with the direct offer of immediate negotiations to be resumed right away?

Mr. Clarke: Exactly.
So far I have described the claim with which the Leader of the Opposition did not quite have the nerve to associate himself.

Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the Secretary of State for Health to use the fact that, as always, the Labour Benches are crowded to divert attention from the fact that, as always, the Tory Benches are empty?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me and it is taking up time.

Mr. David Clelland: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the Secretary of State, who has now twice mentioned the word strike, to mislead the House when no strike is taking place?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows what this debate is about.

Mr. Clarke: In London absolutely no ambulance men are working at the moment, which by my definition is a strike.
I have covered the claim and the offer. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) has just referred to the efforts of the management to move on given that the original offer was rejected by the men in a ballot. As we can all see, the improved offer in London has not brought an end to the action in London.
Duncan Nichol, the chief executive of the National Health Service, has been making repeated efforts for several weeks to resume proper talks between his Whitley council negotiators and the trade unions. He has publicly offered to contemplate a two-year deal including bringing some money forward from the second year into the first year. He has offered a review of the overtime arrangements because the unions are not satisfied with the way in which their 1986 agreement is working on overtime. He has referred to the possibility of local flexibility to meet particular recruitment and retention shortages and the possibility of looking in particular at the paramedical staff and the emergency side of the service.

Mr. Skinner: How much does he earn?

Mr. Clarke: That was a public statement in advance of a resumption in negotiations. I see no way in which the chief executive of the NHS can possibly go any further in trying to get people back to work and sort the problem out where it should sensibly be sorted out—in the NHS negotiating machinery. He, I and the House have a duty to all the other staff in the service. Ninety-five per cent. of National Health Service staff have settled within the ordinary agreed procedures. They are all dedicated people as well. They have claims, some of which have been met in negotiations. The management has given over 10 per cent. to some of the low-paid staff whose jobs in the past have not been appreciated.
Any group of those staff could take industrial action and do great damage to the service if they thought that that was the way to get more than the others. I cannot help thinking that there are some in the trade union movement who have every intention that some of the others should do that if the ambulance men can establish that this sort of industrial action—if one is prepared to take it—gets more money.
Having set out the claim, the offer originally recommended by the trade unions and what has been done to try to get negotiations going again, let me consider the nature of the action now being taken and organised by the trade unions against an offer that they were once minded to accept and recommend.

Mr. Skinner: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Clarke: No, I will not give way.
First, we should look at the non-emergency work of the National Health Service. About nine out of 10 patients driven by ambulances are for non-emergency work such as taking patients to clinics. That is extremely important to patients especially when, as has already been described, it involves taking cancer patients to their radiotherapy sessions. That is not being provided, and in London it has stopped completely.
The Trades Union Congress has drawn up guidelines on non-emergency patients and said which categories, in the opinion of the trade unions, need to travel as non-emergency patients. In London they were offering to do about 2 per cent. of the ordinary patient journeys described as non-emergency work. The management has said that it will not pay ambulance men in full for doing about 2 per cent. of the work when many vehicles are travelling with no patients at all during the day. The reaction of the trade unions was to withdraw all that non-emergency work. They will not accept docking of pay while they are offering to do about 2 per cent. of the work. That is what brought things to a head earlier this week. The men doing little or no work were told that they would not be paid unless they did about half the work and that their pay would be docked unless they did full work. The response to that approach to non-emergency work was that the unions immediately moved to shut down the accident and emergency service in London again. They reverted to the 14 points.
We have heard much about the 14 points and the most extraordinary quotations are being made. Yesterday, when applying for this debate, the hon. Member for Livingston quoted something to do with the radiotelephones, but I still cannot find the document from which he took it. I did not recognise it as any part of the 14 points or discussions upon them. However, he may help us later.
I have a copy of the "London Ambulance Convenors News" upon which the badges of the trade unions are proudly displayed. It sets out the 14 points with which staff were to comply from Monday 23 October. That is the day on which the accident and emergency service first vanished from the streets of London. I readily accept that some of those points are far more important than others and some have nothing to do with the accident and emergency service. We are all getting bogged down with radiotelephones. Point three of the 14 points under the heading
A ban on the use of the radio telephone
states:
Day crews to report at nearest hospital or ambulance station. A and E crews to assist with open-call system and to comply with blue calls, urgent assists and queries on calls.
That was a deliberate decision to stop using the new semi-automatic call and recall system which was introduced because of the inadequacy, about which Labour Members have long complained, of the old system in London. We were not complying in London with the——

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Clarke: I promise that I will give way on the radiotelephone, but then we must move on.
That was the point put into practice when the accident and emergency service first vanished about two weeks ago. The management has expertise, and it does not wish to use the police and the Army in London. However, it rapidly came to the conclusion that it could not guarantee an

accident and emergency service on those terms. The open-call system had long been inadequate in London. All that it requires—as could happen—is for one microphone to be left open accidentally, or accidentally on purpose, and the whole system is aborted. It also means that one loses control of the vehicle because the crew does not report back when it has finished work. It works in the rest of the country because it has not yet been computerised, but it was known not to work in London and it was abandoned because of its inadequacy. It was reintroduced by the trade unions because of that inadequacy and because they knew the management would lose control of the whereabouts of the vehicles.
The House must ask itself, what was the motive in introducing a rule which states:
A ban on the use of the radio telephone"?
The motive for setting out the 14 points was to ensure that the service did not work properly. That is what was achieved.

Mr. Robin Cook: The Secretary of State will acknowledge that the point explicitly said:
A and E crews to assist with 'open-call system'".
That means that they will respond to every 999 call over the open-call system. If that system is considered so appalling and unreliable that it was necessary to suspend the service and bring in the police and the Army, why was it that for 20 years until eight months ago that was the service covering London?

Mr. Clarke: It was becoming increasingly inadequate, and Labour Members were in the forefront of those complaining about its inadequacy. It cannot cope with the volume of traffic in London and certainly not when there is an industrial dispute, when microphones are being left open, nobody knows where vehicles are and they are not reporting back——

Mr. Nigel Spearing: rose——

Mr. Clarke: Let me move on.
That was accepted by the trade unions. The House will recall that the police, St. John Ambulance and the Red Cross were used for only about 36 hours before normal service was resumed. The management said that it could not maintain an accident and emergency service in London without the police, Red Cross and St. John Ambulance. That was worrying and the trade unions sat down with the management and discussed what to do. On 24 October the 14 points were revised and an agreement was reached.
The media and half the House are suddenly becoming experts on radiotelephones, although that is not the only issue. Point five of the 24 October agreement states:
All operational staff, including the frontline crews, will use the radiotelephone, in accordance with London Ambulance Service radio-telephone procedures".
That is working normally and, as we all recall, the result was that the police left the streets of London and returned to their policing duties, the Red Cross and St. John Ambulance were stood down and we had a safe and reliable accident and emergency service again. That was the agreement between the trade unions and the management. The events of 48 hours ago occurred because of the rows over the non-emergency staff and because the management would not pay the men in full for offering to do 2 per cent. of the work. The trade unions broke their agreement and told their men to go back to the 14 paints knowing perfectly well that they were bringing back on to


the streets the police, the Red Cross, St. John Ambulance and—as I told the House in my statement a fortnight ago—the Army to provide a service that they were refusing to maintain.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is the Secretary of State aware of the letter sent by the five unions this morning to the London ambulance service, which says in its final sentence:
Finally, the representatives of the trade unions in London will meet you to discuss any matters the moment you restore an accident and emergency service in London?
Will he confirm that the accident and emergency service in London to which they are referring is the system that worked in London up to eight months ago? Is that not the truth? If it is, why will not the right hon. and learned Gentleman arrange for someone to meet them?

Mr. Clarke: On 24 October the trade unions agreed to restore accident and emergency services——

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is it true?

Mr. Clarke: It is not true.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is this the truth? The trade unions are offering to meet if the right hon. and learned Gentleman arranges for the restoration of the service in London to what it was eight months ago.

Mr. Clarke: It was an inadequate service. It proved inadequate on 23 October and the unions—[Interruption.] On 24 October the trade unions accepted that they had gone too far with their 14 points. They agreed with the management that they would use the radiotelephones in accordance with London ambulance procedures. They broke that agreement to make an industrial point.
The management side offered to meet the trade unions again. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) was right to remind the House of my meeting with Roger Poole on television when he continued to assert that the men were prepared to operate normally. The London ambulance service management, which is desperate to get an ordinary service back, immediately contacted Chris Humphreys, the trade union leader in London, to see whether Roger Poole was confirming that the trade unions would comply with their agreement to use the radiotelephones in the ordinary way. Those London trade union leaders were pulled out of a meeting by their national leaders to avoid going back and confirming what Roger Poole had said. They are still refusing to honour the agreement that they reached on 24 October. That is the background to the dispute.
From my point of view—I believe that it should also be the view of the House—we require an effective accident and emergency service in London that can be guaranteed. People must decide who they believe can make the judgment on that service—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Clarke: The management of the London ambulance service has expertise, judgment and is not directly party to the dispute—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Clarke: In the past, the management has discovered, through experience forced upon it, that one cannot guarantee an effective service with the 14 points.
The Labour party prefers the judgment of the National Union of Public Employees on how to operate the accident and emergency service in London. The Opposition have asked me to overrule the local management because NUPE has gone back on its word by breaking the agreement of 24 October. NUPE wants to operate a system that it knows will not work.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: rose——

Mr. Clarke: No.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) invited the hon. Member for Livingston to take a statesmanlike view. The speech of the shadow Secretary of State for Health was worthy of a shop steward in the middle of an industrial dispute—[Interruption.] He went over the point about the radiotelephones with all the accuracy of a barrack room lawyer trying to defend the difficult position created for him by a trade union—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Clarke: Let us address ourselves to what the shadow Secretary of State for Health said should be done as it gives us an idea of what a Labour Government would do faced with the present situation.

Mr. Frank Haynes: rose——

Mr. Clarke: I am sorry, but I will not give way, even to the hon. Gentleman, or there will be no time for debate.
The hon. Member for Livingston has suggested that I should push the management out of the way and intervene as Secretary of State. He thinks that I should get in the trade unions, ask them what they want and make some arrangements to ensure that they get it. I did not appoint one of the best general managers in the National Health Service, Mr. Duncan Nichol, to treat him in that way. I do not believe that that is a sensible way in which to run the service.
The suggestions of the hon. Member for Livingston show the type of approach that the Labour party adopts to the management of great public services such as the NHS. The Opposition's idea is that if the unions demand something one should overrule and undermine the management, get the trade unions in and do a political deal which is acceptable to their trade union masters. That is exactly what they did in the late 1970s. All this is familiar to every hon. Member who was a Member during the Callaghan Government. The then Minister for Health—the post now held by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley)—was NUPE-sponsored. The Opposition gave so many concessions to everyone who took srike action that, by the winter of 1979, they had everyone in the services on strike. The only ones who suffered when Labour was in power were those, especially NHS employees, who would not take industrial action.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose——

Mr. Clarke: I shall not give way to the same hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must sit down.

Mr. Clarke: In the six years of the previous Labour Government the real-terms pay of nurses sank every year for six years. During that time, doctors' pay was below inflation——

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not continually rise.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Let us get back to parity.

Mr. Clarke: The BMA does not take the kind of industrial action that brings Opposition Members flocking to the Floor of the House to say that Ministers should intervene to give them the money to get the service back working.
This debate is not the way in which to resolve this dispute. The dispute will be resolved by common sense and by the responsible action of those outside. Meanwhile, everyone should discharge their duty to the NHS.

Mr. Dennis Turner: rose——

Mr. Clarke: I shall not give way.
It is the duty of the London ambulance service management to make its best judgment about whether it can guarantee an effective service to the public and to seek to get its trade unions to honour the agreement that the unions made with it on 24 October. It is the duty of Duncan Nichol and his colleagues on the NHS management executive to continue to make valiant efforts——

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose——

Mr. Turner: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Clarke: It is Duncan Nichol's duty to continue with his efforts to get the unions back to the negotiating table.
It is the Government's responsibility to look after the interests of innocent people whose welfare, when injured or seriously ill, is put at risk by the irresponsible action taken by the unions in parts of the ambulance service, in particular, in the capital.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose——

Mr. Clarke: What we are hearing from the Labour party is a din. What we should be hearing from it is an appeal for common sense and an appeal for negotiations to be resumed.
I believe that the trade unions should show some compassion and concern for the people of London. They should honour their commitment to maintain the accident and emergency service. The Labour party and NUPE should tell the trade unions to get back to the negotiating table and to follow the procedures of the NHS. In that way, the dispute could be settled for those staff as it was for 95 per cent. of NHS staff.

Hon. Members: Resign!

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Tony Baldry: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It must be the right of every hon. Member to be

able to listen to debates. I was sitting near my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, but, because of the barracking from the Labour Benches, it was almost impossible to hear what he said. Will you please remind——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman was here and he saw me rise on numerous occasions.
I must tell the House that a great many hon. Members want to participate——

Mr. George Galloway: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. So that as many hon. Members as possible can be called I ask for brief speeches—speeches of five minutes even, if that can be achieved.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I have listened carefully to the Secretary of State, and find it difficult to express my anger and contempt in adequate terms. I have sat in this House for 22 years. Today, I speak freely as someone who has been closely involved with the work of the London ambulance service for the past 14 years. I hold the view which I shall express today because a member of my family who has been closely involved in the issue has been driven out of the ambulance service to which he gave total commitment by the appalling pay and conditions.
When I listen to the Secretary of State, I find it impossible to believe that any serious politician can come to the House and make such scurrilous and totally unacceptable attacks on the London ambulance service or any other service. We are talking about a pay dispute which has been forced upon men and women who, day after day, give a commitment to the people of London of whom the Secretary of State spoke. Day after day, shift after shift, those men and women face increasing personal violence and great risk from increasingly hazardous diseases. They are constantly prepared to do so for wages which the Secretary of State would not accept for someone who devilled for him.
In this dispute, the Government have deliberately sought to provoke the ambulance men and women. Since cash limiting has taken over in the Health Service, the Government have deliberately sought to split those who work in what the Secretary of State constantly refers to as the emergency services from other men and women. His suggestion, somehow or other——

Mr. Dykes: rose——

Hon. Members: Sit down!

Mrs. Dunwoody: The Secretary of State's suggestion is that this is a service in which less than 10 per cent. of the calls involve emergency work and for the rest of the time the staff do no more than taxi drivers. That was the implication of everything that the Secretary of State said.
The service is so stretched and ambulance workers are so tired because they are constantly working—some of them seven days a week. They include people who one day drive old ladies to hospital on coaches and the next day kneel into a battered car to give mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to save someone's life. The Secretary of State's constant assertion that these people are not ordinary ambulance men and women is not only despicable but unworthy of comment.

Mr. Dykes: rose——

Hon. Members: Sit down!

Mrs. Dunwoody: I have watched the deterioration of the service, the inability of managers to manage and the imposition of management services which do not operate.
The Secretary of State talked about the open-call system. Why is it so essential? It is essential because, when all the other systems do not work, the ambulance workers can hear one another and respond. I have known children with steel bolts in their heads saved because the open-call system was used to relay urgent messages from one ambulance to another. Time and again I have seen men and women take risks that the Secretary of State would never take. He talks about bandages and blankets. He would not care to see his family wrapped in dirty blankets, yet he dares to suggest that the ambulance men and women are wrong to refuse to co-operate without properly equipped and cleaned ambulances. What he is doing is beneath contempt.
The Secretary of State is removing the dignity and the right to a decent standard of living from the men and women who provide a vital service which saves lives every day and night—not just when it suits him. I cannot tell him how much I despise that action from someone who is paid a reasonable wage and, supposedly, comes to this House as a responsible Secretary of State. He is becoming the Erich Honecker of the Government, riding his Wartburg round and round the M25, looking for a way out. Let him do the decent thing and resign with grace.

Dame Jill Knight: The speech of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) was rather odd in some particulars. He finished with a throb in his throat and begged the House to vote for his motion to bring back full cover for the people of this country. The odd thing was that he had spent a considerable amount of time earlier in his speech telling us that people were receiving full ambulance cover and all the 999 calls were being answered. I was listening extremely carefully, and the fact is that we were told that 999 calls were being answered and then told to vote for the motion so that all 999 calls would be answered.
I am getting a little sick of the parrot cry for arbitration, arbitration, arbitration. I wonder why Opposition Members do not bother to find out the facts and recall history. The NHS pay and conditions have never ever been settled by arbitration. Pay and terms of service for ambulance staff and others in the NHS have always—this was so when the Labour party was in government—been settled by the Whitley council. Therefore, to suppose that this is a magic formula which the Labour party never used when it was in office is quite extraordinary.
Many misapprehensions are going round this House tonight. One is that hon. Members from one side of the House have bleeding hearts and the others have stony ones. That is completely untrue. No hon. Member has anything but admiration for the way that the ambulance personnel normally respond to emergency and more run-of-the-mill calls. Between 80 per cent. and 90 per cent. of the duties which ambulance personnel carry out are not actually emergency calls, but important calls to take people to treatment.

Mrs. Dunwoody: The same people carry them out.

Dame Jill Knight: The hon. Lady must not pretend to have the only bleeding heart in the House, because she is totally inaccurate. We all want the ambulance staff to get a fairer wage.

Mr. Nellist: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Dame Jill Knight: No, I am trying to be quick.
The second misapprehension is that what is on offer is so unreasonable that it calls for an industrial dispute. Virtually all other staff in the NHS have settled pay claims—some of which have not produced a settlement as favourable as the one on offer. As we know, the London ambulance men are being offered 9·3 per cent. Many settlements have been made that are far below that figure. An increase of 20 per cent. in overtime pay has been offered, which does not seem unreasonable.
I believe that, during the past three years, ambulance men have been given a 28 per cent. increase. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will correct me if I am wrong but I believe that during those three years the retail price index has risen by considerably less—I think that the figure is 9·4 per cent. Therefore, it is hardly the case that the offer is so unreasonable and—with all the discussions that can take place in the Whitley council—it seems incredible that the ambulance staff feel that they must continue with this dispute.
The fourth misapprehension is that ambulance staff should be linked with firefighters—fifth-year firefighters at that. What about first, second or third-year firefighters?

The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): They are not paid so much.

Dame Jill Knight: My hon. Friend is correct. I sometimes think that Opposition Members will never be satisfied with any decision of a court or other body outside this House unless the decision goes their way.
Professor Clegg looked at this very point of comparability between ambulance men and firefighters. I refer hon. Members to Command Paper 7641—the standing commission on pay comparability—a most thorough document. Hon. Members may be interested to know the yardsticks examined by the professor and his commission. He looked at the degree to which the job is made disagreeable and/or difficult by dust, fumes, wet, noise, extremes of temperature, lack of freedom of movement, lighting or unpleasant movement—and at the degree of physical endurance involved. He also considered work performed under unfavourable environmental conditions such as those that I have already Mentioned——

Mrs. Dunwoody: When was that study done?

Dame Jill Knight: In 1978. The hon. Lady would do well to have a look at what Professor Clegg had to say. He considered the danger of falling from height and of incurring cuts and burns. Things have not changed—[Interruption.] Why does not the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), who makes a fetish of involving himself in every debate from a sedentary position, not have the guts to stand up and make his own speech instead of trying to spoil someone else's?

Mr. Cryer: rose——

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I think that the hon. Lady is indicating that she is not giving way.

Mr. Cryer: rose——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has not been called and he is wasting valuable time.

Dame Jill Knight: I should like to draw attention to a statement made by the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) when he was Home Secretary:
People talk about special cases. But the point is that a number of people in industry in general can also put forward a special case. I must make it clear…that we cannot move outside our guidelines".
If that was a fair comment to make when the Opposition were in power, it is fair comment to make today.
My right hon. and learned Friend has two clear overriding duties to this country. First, he cannot allow the message to go out that failing to care for emergency patients or for those who have met with accidents or heart attacks will put extra money into people's pockets. It would be monstrous if one had only to threaten to withhold medical care to obtain an increase in salary. That is what my right hon. and learned Friend would be saying if he allowed himself to be blackmailed into meeting the Opposition's demands.
The second duty——

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: rose——

Dame Jill Knight: I am anxious to be quick.

Mr. Lofthouse: rose——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has made it clear that she will not give way.

Mr. Cryer: I should be quite happy to make my own speech——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has made it very clear that she is not giving way.

Dame Jill Knight: I have never known the hon. Member for Bradford, South to need the pity of the rest of the House.
The second duty on my right hon. and learned Friend's shoulders——

Mr. Lofthouse: rose——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not persist once the hon. Lady has said that she will not give way.

Dame Jill Knight: Many hon. Members want to speak, as I know you are aware, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The second duty that lies heavy on the shoulders of my right hon. and learned Friend is that of ensuring that all emergency calls are met. If the only way to do that is to call in the Army and the police, so be it. I do not believe that ambulance staff generally are militant people. Most of them must detest putting sick people in jeopardy. I hope that in future we can arrive at a no-strike agreement so that never again will our people have to face the trauma, worry and fear that are now in their hearts.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: The placing of troops on the streets of the capital by the Health Department is a reflection of the gravity of the situation, but some of the Secretary of State's characteristic comments on it did not measure up to that gravity. There have been reports during the afternoon of some staff being suspended without pay in Manchester, Surrey and Essex, so the problem is unequivocally a national one. The dispute should never have been allowed to reach this stage. The Secretary of State could have used his office long ago to prevent that.
I want to offer one reflection on the post-Griffiths NHS management which has become visible through this sad dispute. At the time of the Griffiths report and the debates in the House on the new management structure that was envisaged—I believe that the Secretary of State was then a Minister of State at the Department of Health—we were offered an assurance of the Minister's continuing political accountability to Parliament for the NHS. Yet in this dispute the Secretary of State appears to be willing to regard the NHS from his office as a spectator sport.
This contrasts dramatically with the position that the right hon. and learned Gentleman adopted in the House only two weeks ago on GPs' contracts. He did not spectate on that occasion: he dictated. As a result of the belligerence that he has shown in this dispute and in other matters he has inflamed an already vexed problem.
The Secretary of State defended Mr. Duncan Nichol. In what The Guardian yesterday described as a frank interview, Mr. Nichol
acknowledged that he and his colleagues were failing to convince NHS staff, let alone the wider public, of the merits of the Government's health shake-up. There was, he said, a long way to go.
I suspect that the Secretary of State's comments this afternoon have not got him much further down the road towards displaying concern or sensitivity about the attitudes expressed in the dispute.
Elsewhere we are told that advisers advise and Ministers decide. In the Department of Health it appears that managers decide and Ministers do little more than provoke. The Secretary of State should face up to his
responsibility for that.
What of the remuneration of the ambulance men and their comparability with other emergency services? The Secretary of State has made it clear on several occasions, and confirmed this afternoon, that he sets the parameters within which pay bargaining is conducted at Whitley council level, but he and the Prime Minister earlier today were disingenuous to suggest that progress can be achieved at Whitley council level, given that he has made it categorically clear that more resources will not be available. That knocks on the head any room for meaningful manoeuvre or further negotiations to try to resolve the dispute.
As the Secretary of State will not speak to them directly, it is worth letting the ambulance men speak for themselves. A constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), a Mr. Black, who has almost 12 years of service with the Northumbria ambulance service, wrote to my hon. Friend as follows:
Over recent years we have in this service put up with a great deal of changes, cutbacks, and streamlining, but nevertheless 'weathered the storm' and picked ourselves up again … Mr. Duncan Nichol makes a statement that we do not compare with the Police and Fire services. It is totally


demoralising and upsetting. As you well know we have the notorious A.1 road running through our area, and often get calls to accidents on it. On some occasions the fire service are in attendance with the police and ourselves, and sometimes there is only Police and ambulance. After Mr. Nichol's comments I feel that whenever in future I am involved with other emergency services I am going to feel inferior to them. It is ridiculous to think that we work for a service that is not classed as an emergency service.
I quote his letter in full as he gives a clear representation of how the ambulance men feel. He continued:
Whenever we leave an incident, we leave behind us the traffic police trying to take statements, and speak with witnesses, the Fire service hosing the road, and sweeping up broken glass, and the main responsibility for the major part of the incident is left with us, which is the lives of the injured who are in our hands only, until we reach the hospital. I am not decrying another service because one service can not work without the other, but it certainly makes me think that I am part of the 'Cinderella Service' … I have been proud to be an ambulance man and thoroughly enjoy my work, but since Mr. Nichol's remarks I have felt demoralised and sickened … The opinion I am portraying is my own, but I feel that this will be the same throughout the ambulance service nationally.
When, as he must, the Secretary of State defends Mr. Nichol, will he bear in mind that that is the effect of Mr. Nichol's attitude in this dispute?

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The Northumberland ambulance service is one of the best in the country. It has gone through considerable reorganisation and it almost solely performs accident and emergency work. It does hardly any non-emergency work. A high proportion of its staff are trained as paramedical staff. Duncan Nichol openly talked about looking particularly at paramedical staff, people with high qualifications and those who concentrate on accident and emergency services. Unfortunately, that view is rejected by the trade unions, the Labour party, and the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). They do not believe in distinguishing between the tenth of the mileage for emergency work and the other nine tenths for the rest. Duncan Nichol has freely spoken about the need to consider high-quality paramedically trained staff of the kind now concentrated in Northumberland.

Mr. Kennedy: I can only state the hallowed phrase that is used when things go badly for the Government—the message somehow does not seem to be getting across to the ambulance men.
I now quote another ambulance man in my constituency, Mr. Moore. He lives in Wester Ross, a typical profoundly rural area. He writes with a sense of frustration about the conditions in which he and his colleagues find themselves. He says:
In addition to the 40 hours which I am on duty I also do 'on call' duty which amounts to a further 40 hours each week. For this I receive in the region of 50p per hour. Due to economic factors many rural areas are run on a wing and a prayer. Some are still served by contractors … where untrained staff are paid per mile for driving an ambulance. Fortunately, the 'prayer' seems to work, so far. The current dispute is a call for fair treatment—not to get rich but to stop getting poorer.
As many hon. Members will know from their constituency work, many ambulance men are in receipt of housing benefit and family credit. That shows the inadequacy of their pay, particularly for those with young families. It cannot be good for much of their income to be derived from the state benefit system. Surely the Secretary of State can recognise the inadequacies. More skill training

and more paramedics are needed, but resources and political will are at the heart of the dispute. The Secretary of State's speech lacked conviction.
I now refer to the longer-term implications. There should be an independent pay review board for this sector to avoid leap-frogging between the Whitley arrangement and the independent pay review bodies for certain sectors. It should take into account public and private sector comparisons, market factors and conditions in local labour markets. If we have an independent arbitration service, it, too, should consider no-strike agreements and pendulum arbitration as a way of resolving future disputes.
Clearly, the existing management structure has failed by letting the dispute reach this stage. The remuneration on offer is unfair and the denial of comparability is equally unjust. As Lord McCarthy, when he looked at the Whitley set-up, said, it consisted of
employers who do not pay and paymasters who do not employ.
The dispute is presided over by a Minister who does not seem sufficiently to care. The Army should be put back into barracks and ambulance crews should be put back on our streets.

Mr. John Marshall: There has been more than a whiff of hypocrisy in the debate. It is well to remember the tactics that have been employed by the ambulance men in London this week. They were to maximise public inconvenience and minimise the cost to their own pay packets. Those are the tactics of the blackmailer and the bully-boy in the 1980s. [Interruption.] They are quite disgraceful tactics, and I thank the Opposition for their support. Faced with those tactics, any responsible Government would have done the same as the present Government have done. After all, the Labour Government put the green goddesses on to the streets in 1978–79.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: On that occasion, the fire service was shut down completely. Obviously, in that situation, any Government had to save lives. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that this is on all fours with the firemen's dispute, he is looking back 10 years to when he was not a Member of Parliament.

Mr. Marshall: As a former Home Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman knows that 90 per cent. of cases in London are not emergency cases, and those are the cases with which the ambulance men are not dealing. Surely, when 90 per cent. of cases are not being dealt with, it is the Government's duty to take some action. Labour Members' lectures on Health Service staff wages are like Satan rebuking sin. The last Labour Government were responsible for a massive decline in the living standards of nurses and others in the Health Service.
This afternoon, we heard the Labour party's first commandment—"Thou shalt not annoy thy union paymasters." The House has heard from the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that he had been meeting ambulance workers for the past eight weeks. He did not say that he condemned their action or that he asked them to go back to their normal work. Labour party leaders will never condemn union action that creates hardship for others or is responsible for job losses.
Some people say that the Government should pay whatever is necessary to end the dispute, but they do not consider the consequences. If people are paid a certain sum to stop an irresponsible strike, the result will be a rash of irresponsible public sector strikes. If the Government pay huge sums for every irresponsible strike, the result will be rip-roaring inflation. Opposition Members know all about that, because they were responsible for it before. Those who suffer most from rip-roaring inflation are those for whom the Labour party claims to stand—the elderly, the sick, and the poorest paid. The weakest members of the community suffer from rip-roaring inflation. That is why the Government are right to stand firm rather than to pay up and give in to blackmail, which is what they are being asked to do.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: The ambulance workers of Lancashire are as keen as the ambulance workers in the rest of the country to achieve a proper wage structure. They are just as determined in their action, but there is a significant difference between the position of the people of Lancashire and that of the people of London and other parts of the country: the people of Lancashire have their emergency ambulance service secured, because the chief ambulance officer has decided that he will not have the Army, the police or any other organisation running ambulances in Lancashire. He talked to the trade unions and, as could be the position everywhere else, there is in Lancashire an emergency service covering 999 calls, maternity calls, the terminally ill, renal dialysis calls, radiotherapy and special categories of people at risk. There has been an agreement with the trade unions, the organisations that Conservative Members are castigating and slandering this evening.
The ambulance workers of Lancashire have shown determination to win their proper pay. In common with their colleagues throughout the country, they have also shown their devotion to the service. All ambulance workers would gladly sign the sort of agreement which was signed in Lancashire this morning.

Mr. Dykes: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Wise: As the hon. Gentleman has already intervened in the debate and as there is a little time available to us, my answer is no.
I recommend that the Secretary of State consults the chief ambulance officer of Lancashire and follows his example. As it is supposed to be the trade unions alone who are making certain claims, I recommend that the right hon. and learned Gentleman reads yesterday's editorial comment in the Lancashire Evening Post, which states:
It is a sad fact of life that too many people take too much for granted and that applies particularly to the three emergency services.
The only time we really take note of ambulancemen and women is either when we need the service personally or when its personnel are involved in saving life during the aftermath of a national disaster.
The article continues:
Backed by public support and sympathy, the ambulance-men's case is a sound one.
That is right.
The Government are making a tremendous error in thinking that they can distinguish between patient care and the work of the ambulance service. That is their excuse for refusing arbitration. In the terms of the Government's

reply to the Select Committee on Social Services, they are afraid that money will be "diverted from patient care", but the ambulance service and ambulance workers are patient care. There is no patient care unless these workers do their job as they want to do. The population is behind them, as the Secretary of State will learn to his cost. Come to Lancashire, Secretary of State, and learn from those who have saved the emergency service in the county without the ambulance workers having to lose pay——

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Does the hon. Lady appreciate that the management in London entered into an agreement with the unions on 24 October which put ambulances back on the street? Earlier this week, with the approval of her party, the unions cynically broke that agreement and returned to the old operation of their 14-point plan.

Mrs. Wise: Like the Secretary of State, I have had the privilege of listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). Consequently, I am fully seized of the situation in London. The London ambulance workers are willing to run an ambulance service which would be entirely adequate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) has said, that service may even have advantages. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument will not wash.
The ambulance and emergency services for Lancashire have been saved. If the Secretary of State would give way and cease his provocation, the emergency service for the rest of the country could be saved as well.

Mr. Richard Holt: We all know the story about the man who asked the yokel where he was and the route that he should take, whereupon the yokel told him that he had come from the wrong place. Where are we in this dispute? We are in a mess. In fact, we are in a hell of a mess. Why are we in it? I suggest that there are many historical reasons, which have not all surfaced today.
The first roots of the dispute were established in 1978, and they were part and parcel of what led to the Clegg report of 1979. If ayone wants to dispute that, let me make it clear that I have the report with me and can quote from it if necessary.
I am a practising personnel man who has been involved in industrial relations for over 20 years, but I could not find my way around, or understand, what is going on. There are far too many negotiators. There are far too many people who have their fingers in the pie. There is the Whitley council. What is that body and where is it? How are the members of the council appointed and where are they appointed? There are unions with leaders who clearly do not have the trust of their members; if they did, they would be able to strike a deal and adhere to it. Management is not negotiating because it does not have control of the finances. A financial limit is imposed upon it. No self-respecting management that is in that position can enter negotiations and strike a deal.
What is the role of the Secretary of State? He is player No. 5 in this game. No one knows what his role is, but we all have suspicions. Finally, there is the Treasury, which is player No. 6. We are still not sure about the nature of the Treasury's role.
Much is said about comparability and the Clegg report. Hon. Members talk about the report as if it came down from the mountains. They suggest that it is inviolate and


right for all time, and never could have been wrong in the first place. We must recall the days when the Clegg commission was established. What was the climate of that time? How many people were in dispute at that time? When we read the Clegg report and everything that is related to it, we find that it is one, two or three, and then the ambulance men. The report states that it had to make assumptions when it came to determining comparability because it did not have time to discover the facts. The Clegg commission was given too great a brief and too little time. As a result, the ambulance men's case came last. The commission did not do its job properly. If there were a re-examination now of the ambulance men alone, we might come to different conclusions.
Who can put his hand on his heart and say that in his opinion ambulance men are dealing with emergency cases all the time? The figure of 10 per cent. refers to time and not to cases. How many firemen are dealing with emergencies for more than 10 per cent. of their working day? I would back the firemen's snooker, darts and other teams in my area against the teams formed by the ambulance men in the area, even though the firemen do not have quite so much free and down time as the ambulance men. However, we are told that the ambulance men must have more. The Clegg commission made a mistake and did not do its job properly. It considered the issues in hindsight and as a consequence the argument that is advanced on the basis of the Clegg report is unsound.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that firemen are always ready to respond to calls? The only way in which we could oblige the hon. Gentleman would be to set fire to our cities so that the firemen could work 24 hours a day. Is that not ridiculous?

Mr Holt: A great deal of what we are discussing is ridiculous. The ambulance men's dispute should never have reached its present stage. That is ridiculous. To some extent, it is ridiculous to talk about the events of 10 years ago. To talk about 6·5 per cent. when everyone else, including ourselves, is getting more is also ridiculous. We are told that there is a man who has the freedom to negotiate when he has not, and he is saying silly things about the ambulance men having £600 to come, for example, when that is their money, money which has been withheld for the past few months. It is said that they can have some of next year's money, but that is not the way for anyone to negotiate this year's agreement. That is entirely the wrong approach.
The Clegg report states:
We have no direct information relating to comparable conditions of service, but ambulancemen's conditions of service are broadly the same as for NHS ancillaries.
That is how out of touch Clegg was in his report. He actually equated ambulance men, who deal with emergencies, with cooks and porters in hospitals.
I am a little closer to this issue than some of my colleagues because I am one of the few Conservative Members who have actually met Roger Poole and the others concerned with the dispute. Far too many unions are involved—we are trying to deal with five unions, and we should be trying to do something about that. Roger Poole, in a letter to me, states that the unions are looking

for a pay formula that would ensure that never again would ambulance staff have to take industrial action over a national wage claim.
One of the comments in the Clegg report is that these people do not feel that society gives them the status that they should be given. It suggests that they should be monthly salaried—but 10 years on, no one has actually thought about it. That is something that the Government could be doing now. The pay review body should be thinking about the status of ambulance staff, and we should be considering no-strike agreements similar to those with the police and others in the public sector. The Government Front Bench are snared, but they can get themselves off the hook if they listren to their friends on the Conservative Benches.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: The hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) has properly pinpointed some of the anomalies as they are perceived by a Conservative Member. There is a powerful case for those anomalies to be referred to the Arbitration, Conciliation and Advisory Service. I hope that he agrees with that, and that he will condemn the disgraceful speech of the Secretary of State. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech demeaned the occasion and, indeed, demeaned him.
I do not enter this debate with a National Union of Public Employees briefing or with a briefing from any union. My interest lies in the death of Mrs. Margaret Lander, a constituent of mine, and the suffering of a Mr. Lambert, both of Canning Town. More than a fortnight ago, they waited an hour for an ambulance when, only five minutes away at the Plaistow ambulance station, ambulance crews were willing and waiting to take them to hospital. Last Tuesday, the Secretary of State had the effrontery to say that ambulance people were only pretending to be available. I can tell him that since 9 am yesterday, more than 100 calls to the London ambulance service have been answered by ambulance personnel, most in voluntary time and through the radiotelephone system.
The Secretary of State's conduct has been very bad, and I criticise him on two main grounds. However, before doing so I want to comment on the points made by the hon. Member for Brmingham, Edgbastoin (Dame J. Knight), who referred to pay. If she believes in market forces, as do most Conservative Members, she should pay attention to the haemorrhage in the personnel of the London ambulance service. Of the 2,700 staff, 680 left during the two years to June and of those, 380 left before normal retirement age and 200 because they were unfit.

Dame Jill Knight: rose——

Mr. Spearing: I am sorry, but I cannot give way. I am responding to points made by the hon. Lady. She knows, as do all those who referred to the 10 per cent. time factor, that it is misleading because those who deal with non-emergency cases are still dealing with sick people who are in distress. Those who care for those who are in distress are necessarily under stress themselves. All ambulance crews are under stress all the time.
The Secretary of State says that Mr. Nichol is concerned with the highly skilled. He may not realise, and neither may Mr. Spry—who is not the administrator of the ambulance service, but the general manager of South-West


Thames regional health authority—that before one can become skilled at dealing with accidents on the A1 one must do an apprenticeship in dealing with the less difficult cases. I challenge the Secretary of State to say that he and the South-West Thames regional health authority are not putting out feelers for privatising the non-emergency services—for hiving off the so-called non-emergency service. Are they not in contact with such organisations as Securicor, London Regional Transport and even borough transport authorities? I have asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman about that, but he appears not to know the answer. As Secretary of State, he should know the answer. Will he get up and tell me whether that is the case?

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Currently, the non-emergency staff in London are offering to do about 2 per cent. of their work, but want to be paid in full. The management will not accept that. That led to the trade unions breaking their agreement on the accident and emergency services and coming out in sympathy. The money that was previously being spent on non-emergency crews is, of course, now required to pay for the hospital car service, the taxis and the other vehicles that are being used to carry non-emergency patients. There are already parts of the country where the non-emergency service has been adequately replaced by other forms of transport. The strike is accelerating that day throughout the country.

Mr. Spearing: The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not deny my main charge. He has destabilised public service after public service—in which Conservative Members appear to have no interest—by threatening the integrity of those services and calling them into question. I challenge him to say that he is not doing that, but he has already confirmed my fears in his intervention. How can we extend the hospital ambulance service by expenditure on a minicab or a black taxi to take an elderly lady to hospital? That is what the Government are doing, and it undermines the morale and the cohesion of the ambulance service. The dispute is not simply about the immediate matter of pay.
On 31 October 1986, I had a debate with the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie). I am sorry that she is not in her place today. She said:
About 10,500 fewer walking patients were being transported—a reduction of 44 per cent. I am more than happy at that development."—[Official Report, 31 October 1986; Vol. 103, c. 666.]
It was absolute sauce and a scandal for the hon. Lady to say that. She is no longer a Minister, but the Secretary of State and his colleagues are responsible for that policy. They are responsible for capping the funds of the ambulance service in London, when, in fact, it should be demand-led.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned the radio service. That service was introduced a few months ago, but it is an electronic computer system that does not always work properly. It sometimes jams. The Poplar ambulance station sent a detailed memorandum to the so-called administrators of the London ambulance service asking them to put it right. They have not even received a reply—[Interruption.] I ask the Secretary of State to pay attention to what I am saying. I hope that he will stop talking to his right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) and attend to the detail of the shocking maladministration of the ambulance service in London. That is the background to the dispute.
My constituents in Canning Town were waiting for an ambulance from the local ambulance station. The administrators of the London ambulance service decreed that they should not receive their ambulance calls, and the Secretary of State must take responsibility for that decision because it was made by one man, whom I will riot name, with the Secretary of State's connivance. It is he and he alone who is responsible.

Ms. Harriet Harman: The Secretary of State commented on how many Labour Members were in the House when he spoke tonight. They are here because they had hoped to hear something from him tonight which showed that we could look forward to the resolution of the dispute. We have heard nothing of that tonight. Those Labour Members who are present tonight are reflecting the high level of public concern in their constituencies that there should be an urgent resolution to the dispute.
The situation is serious. The Army and police vehicles and the voluntary ambulances cannot cope adequately with accidents and emergencies. To expect them to do so is unfair on ambulance crews who want to work and who have been prevented from doing so, and it is unfair on the police and the Army, who are put in the front line of a situation which is not of their making and with which they know that they cannot cope.
The Government have been right in the past to praise the ambulance service, particularly when ambulance officers and crews have risked their lives to save others. But when it comes to a pay award, they are offered less than the rate of inflation. They are offered a pay award that would let them see their standard of living slide, and that is wrong; that would see a widening gap between their pay and the pay of the other emergency services—the police and the fire service—with whom they have to work as a team.
The dispute need never have happened. It should never have happened. Having created the dispute, the Government are now making things worse every day and every hour.
The Secretary of State has insulted the ambulance crews that have been praised in the past by accusing them of posturing and pretending. He has twisted the facts, saying that the unions first accepted the pay offer when it is clear that the pay offer was twice refused on a ballot of all the membership. He said again and again in the House tonight that the union is on strike. The ambulance crews are not on strike; they have been suspended. Is he so out of touch with what is happening outside the House that he has not seen today the London ambulance service vehicles taking ambulance calls with signs on the side saying, "Suspended but still working"? Those ambulance crews want to work, but they are being prevented from doing so. The ambulance crews are rightly concerned about the pay offer, not just as a matter of justice for themselves, but because they rightly have long-term fears for the future of the service.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said, ambulance crews are voting with their feet and leaving the ambulance service. The fact that the London ambulance service, like other ambulance services, is understaffed contributes to the fact that only half our ambulance services meet the Government guidelines for getting to accidents and emergencies on time. The Surrey


ambulance service, which serves the constituency of the Minister for Health, does not meet the Government target for getting to accidents and emergencies on time.
The Secretary of State talked of bonds of common humanity. I hope that he will listen to the case of Mavis Thomas, whose sister came to see me in my surgery. Mavis Thomas, aged 17, had an asthma attack and an ambulance was called. The London ambulance service told me that no vehicles were available at the nearest three ambulance stations. It took half an hour for the nearest ambulance to arrive, and by the time Mavis Thomas reached hospital it was too late to resuscitate her and she died. Understaffing has contributed to the situation where the service cannot provide the ambulance service that we all want to see.
If the Secretary of State had talked to ambulance crews, he would know, as we do, that they do not want to be prevented from working. He would know, as we do, that they do not want to be in an industrial dispute. They do not want to be in political controversy. They want to do their job, and it is that job that the public want them to do. The Government are gambling with people's lives, both currently and in the future. They must agree to arbitration.
The Secretary of State has offered no hope of a solution tonight. The House must vote for arbitration to replace confrontation. If we do, the dispute could be ended tonight.

The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): All of us in the House feel strongly about the important contribution made by the skilled and dedicated service of ambulance staff. None of us wants to underestimate the important part that they play in caring for the sick and the injured, often in stressful and difficult circumstances.
I want to pay a special tribute to the chief ambulance officers and all their staff who are struggling to maintain services to the public. Many have refused to turn their backs on their responsibilities. Members of the Association of Professional Ambulance Personnel have declared themselves unwilling to countenance action that would hurt patients.
But having said that, I want to make it clear that today we have seen the Opposition in their true colours. It sends a shudder down one's back to think that, were the country ever so unfortunate as to have the Labour party in power again, once again it would be beer and sandwiches and, "Let's sort this out. Let's pay up. Who cares?" The frail and the vulnerable cannot speak. They do not have the strong arm of the trade unions. What they need is the long arm of the Government.
It is an interesting contrast that a week ago, when we were discussing the fundamental element of our primary health care proposals, the contract for the general practitioners, the Opposition Benches were almost empty. But today, with the whiff of industrial action, they come out of their lairs. With the prospect of a picket line, they stir from their lethargy.
Once again, we are reminded of the winter of discontent. Health care is to be decided not by those with the skills to decide on how best to meet patients' needs, not by medical and other practitioners, but by trade union

guidelines, by the COHSE and NUPE convenors, who take it upon themselves to decide whether a case is urgent or needy.

Mr. Nellist: rose——

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: rose——

Mrs. Bottomley: When we see the Opposition Benches crowded in this way, all of us know full well what the Opposition are really considering.

Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that it is a point of order and not a point of argument.

Mr. Corbyn: It is a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State and the Minister of State have, throughout their speeches, vilified the National Union of Public Employees, which is my union, and at no stage have they been prepared——

Mr. Speaker: Order. It must be a point of order for me.

Mr. Corbyn: It would be common courtesy to allow a representative of that union to respond on behalf of its members. In those circumstances, is it in order for the Minister to refuse to give way?

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry that it has not been possible to call the hon. Gentleman and many other hon. Members, but unless the Minister gives way, I cannot do anything about it.

Mrs. Bottomley: Much has also been said about those who are not involved in emergency work. All of us agree that the nine out of 10 miles that the ambulance crews ride looking after those who are not accident or emergency cases are equally important. They are vulnerable and frail people who need the services that the ambulance crews should properly and rightly provide. Nor will the people of London think much of the argument that ambulance crews who are not carrying out a full day's work should receive their full pay.
The facts speak for themselves. This year the Government have provided the largest ever increase in NHS funds, far in excess of anything that the Labour party would ever have been able to provide. Within those generous resources, it must be right that the NHS management should decide how the resources are to be allocated, which are the cases that should be dealt with and how the rewards should be paid to those who work.
If patients are to experience the high standards of health care that we are determined to provide, Health Service employees must know that we shall protect them from the reckless and excessive claims of trade unions. Patients—the frail and the vulnerable; those who cannot speak, and who have not the strong arm of the unions behind them—must know that they can have confidence in our running of the National Health Service.
We want a speedy resolution of the dispute. We want to see service personnel return to their barracks, and not to be forced to man the ambulance service. And, of course, we want the unions to return to the Whitley council so that we can discuss in detail many of the aspects that have already been raised.
In London, where the thrust of this appalling action is taking place, this year's settlement would ensure that the pay of ambulance staff was well ahead of inflation. I ask


the House to reject the outrageous claims of the Opposition, and to reject the motion. The Government believe in the National Health Service; we believe in those who work for it; and, above all, we believe in the patients. We do not believe that the National Health Service should be run by the excessive claims of irresponsible trade unionists.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 204, Noes 297.

Division No. 386]
[7pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Flannery, Martin


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Flynn, Paul


Allen, Graham
Foster, Derek


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Fraser, John


Armstrong, Hilary
Fyfe, Maria


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Galloway, George


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Ashton, Joe
George, Bruce


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Barron, Kevin
Gordon, Mildred


Battle, John
Gould, Bryan


Beckett, Margaret
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Bell, Stuart
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Grocott, Bruce


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Bermingham, Gerald
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Bidwell, Sydney
Heffer, Eric S.


Blair, Tony
Henderson, Doug


Boyes, Roland
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)


Bradley, Keith
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Home Robertson, John


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Buchan, Norman
Hoyle, Doug


Buckley, George J.
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Caborn, Richard
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Callaghan, Jim
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Campbell, Menzies (File NE)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Hume, John


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Illsley, Eric


Canavan, Dennis
Ingram, Adam


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Janner, Greville


Cartwright, John
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Clelland, David
Kennedy, Charles


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Kirkwood, Archy


Cohen, Harry
Lambie, David


Coleman, Donald
Lamond, James


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Leadbitter, Ted


Corbyn, Jeremy
Leighton, Ron


Cousins, Jim
Litherland, Robert


Crowther, Stan
Livingstone, Ken


Cryer, Bob
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cummings, John
Loyden, Eddie


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McAllion, John


Dalyell, Tam
McAvoy, Thomas


Darling, Alistair
McCartney, Ian


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Macdonald, Calum A.


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McFall, John


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Dewar, Donald
McKelvey, William


Dixon, Don
Maclennan, Robert


Dobson, Frank
McNamara, Kevin


Doran, Frank
McWilliam, John


Duffy, A. E. P.
Madden, Max


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Eastham, Ken
Mallon, Seamus


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Marek, Dr John


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Fatchett, Derek
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Martlew, Eric


Fisher, Mark
Maxton, John





Meacher, Michael
Short, Clare


Meale, Alan
Sillars, Jim


Michael, Alun
Skinner, Dennis


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Morgan, Rhodri
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Morley, Elliot
Snape, Peter


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Soley, Clive


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Spearing, Nigel


Mowlam, Marjorie
Steinberg, Gerry


Mullin, Chris
Stott, Roger


Murphy, Paul
Strang, Gavin


Nellist, Dave
Straw, Jack


O'Brien, William
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


O'Neill, Martin
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Patchett, Terry
Turner, Dennis


Pendry, Tom
Vaz, Keith


Pike, Peter L.
Wall, Pat


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Wallace, James


Prescott, John
Walley, Joan


Quin, Ms Joyce
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Radice, Giles
Wareing, Robert N.


Randall, Stuart
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Redmond, Martin
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Reid, Dr John
Wigley, Dafydd


Richardson, Jo
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Robinson, Geoffrey
Wilson, Brian


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Winnick, David


Rowlands, Ted
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Ruddock, Joan
Worthington, Tony


Sedgemore, Brian



Sheerman, Barry
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Mr. Frank Cook.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Butler, Chris


Alexander, Richard
Butterfill, John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Amess, David
Carrington, Matthew


Amos, Alan
Carttiss, Michael


Arbuthnot, James
Cash, William


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Chapman, Sydney


Ashby, David
Chope, Christopher


Aspinwall, Jack
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Baldry, Tony
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Batiste, Spencer
Colvin, Michael


Bellingham, Henry
Conway, Derek


Bendall, Vivian
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Benyon, W.
Cormack, Patrick


Bevan, David Gilroy
Couchman, James


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Cran, James


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Critchley, Julian


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Body, Sir Richard
Curry, David


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Boswell, Tim
Day, Stephen


Bottomley, Peter
Devlin, Tim


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Dorrell, Stephen


Bowis, John
Dover, Den


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Dunn, Bob


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Durant, Tony


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Dykes, Hugh


Brazier, Julian
Eggar, Tim


Bright, Graham
Emery, Sir Peter


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Fallon, Michael


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Farr, Sir John


Buck, Sir Antony
Favell, Tony


Budgen, Nicholas
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Burns, Simon
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Burt, Alistair
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey






Fishburn, John Dudley
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Fookes, Dame Janet
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Forman, Nigel
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lilley, Peter


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Lord, Michael


Franks, Cecil
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Freeman, Roger
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


French, Douglas
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Gale, Roger
Maclean, David


Garel-Jones, Tristan
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gill, Christopher
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Glyn, Dr Alan
Madel, David


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Major, Rt Hon John


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Malins, Humfrey


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mans, Keith


Gorst, John
Maples, John


Gow, Ian
Marland, Paul


Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
Marlow, Tony


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gregory, Conal
Mates, Michael


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Maude, Hon Francis


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Grist, Ian
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Ground, Patrick
Mellor, David


Grylls, Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Miller, Sir Hal


Hague, William
Miscampbell, Norman


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mitchell, Sir David


Hampson, Dr Keith
Monro, Sir Hector


Hanley, Jeremy
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hannam, John
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Morrison, Sir Charles


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Moss, Malcolm


Harris, David
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Haselhurst, Alan
Mudd, David


Hayes, Jerry
Neale, Gerrard


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Needham, Richard


Hayward, Robert
Nelson, Anthony


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Neubert, Michael


Heddle, John
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Nicholls, Patrick


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hill, James
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hind, Kenneth
Paice, James


Holt, Richard
Patnick, Irvine


Hordern, Sir Peter
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Pawsey, James


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Portillo, Michael


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hunter, Andrew
Price, Sir David


Irvine, Michael
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Irving, Charles
Redwood, John


Jack, Michael
Renton, Tim


Jackson, Robert
Rhodes James, Robert


Janman, Tim
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jessel, Toby
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Rowe, Andrew


Key, Robert
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Ryder, Richard


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Knapman, Roger
Sayeed, Jonathan


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knox, David
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lang, Ian
Shelton, Sir William


Latham, Michael
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lawrence, Ivan
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)





Shersby, Michael
Tredinnick, David


Sims, Roger
Trippier, David


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Twinn, Dr Ian


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Viggers, Peter


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Squire, Robin
Walden, George


Stanbrook, Ivor
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Stern, Michael
Waller, Gary


Stevens, Lewis
Ward, John


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Watts, John


Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)
Wheeler, John


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Whitney, Ray


Sumberg, David
Widdecombe, Ann


Summerson, Hugo
Wiggin, Jerry


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Wilkinson, John


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wilshire, David


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Wolfson, Mark


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wood, Timothy


Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Yeo, Tim


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Thorne, Neil



Thurnham, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Mr. Alastair Goodlad and


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Mr. David Lightbown


Tracey, Richard

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the debate that has just ended, the Minister—due either to shortage of time or lack of inclination—was unable to give the House any idea of what is now going to happen in the ambulance dispute, or of whether the intention is to withdraw the troops and negotiate properly with the unions who wish to undertake the emergency services. Is the Minister able to say when the House will be able to return to this important matter so that representatives of the unions concerned—the National Union of Public Employees, the Transport and General Workers Union, the Confederation of Health Service Employees and the General, Municipal, and Allied Trades Boilermakers Union—will be able to put their concerns directly to Ministers?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot advise hon. Members on tactics, but there may be opportunities next week, no doubt, to do that.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. It was a short debate. Those hon. Members who were called spoke very briefly. Nevertheless, I am sorry that more hon. Members could not be called.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I withdrew my name from the list of those who wished to speak in the debate because time was short. However, to elaborate on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), people could die tonight on the streets of London. The Secretary of State has said nothing whatever about what is going to happen——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but we cannot continue the debate now.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The International Westminster Bank Bill is to be considered during private business at 7 o'clock and

Mr. Speaker: Order. I suggest that the hon. Member ought to raise that point when we reach private business.

International Westminster Bank Bill (By Order)

[MR. HAROLD WALKER in the Chair.]

Order read for consideration of Lords amendments.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will no doubt have seen the report in tonight's Evening Standard that several leading persons in the City have been arrested and that one of the companies involved in the conspiracy to contravene section 13 of the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act 1958 was the National Westminster bank. Two people, who were respectively chairman and chief executive of County NatWest at the time of the Blue Arrow deal, have also been arrested.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is bearing in mind the sub judice rule.

Mr. Cryer: That is the very point that I wish to raise with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In addition, the current finance director of County NatWest has been charged with conspiracy to defraud. You have raised the very point that I wish to draw to your attention—that as these cases are pending we might come into conflict with the sub judice rule if we were now to consider the International Westminster Bank Bill. In those circumstances, might it not be better to withdraw it? I am also wondering whether the promoters of the Bill have informed you about the newspaper report. As you rightly said, the sub judice rule influences our ability to debate certain parts of the Bill. I should therefore be grateful for your ruling.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have received no representations, nor am I aware of the matters to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I do not think that they need impede our consideration of what are, after all, very narrow Lords amendments.

Mr. Michael Welsh: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A number of the amendments relate to the bank's directors. Presumably it will be possible for hon. Members to vote against amendments that relate directly to those directors. It is possible that a number of hon. Members on both sides would like to divide the House.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I went into the Noes Lobby just before the Division and I could find no order of selection of amendments. Do you intend to take together all the amendments to the International Westminster Bank Bill and to have a separate vote on each of them, or do you intend to take each amendment separately and to have a vote after consideration of each amendment?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that I can deal with both of the points that have been raised by the hon. Members for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh). Our usual practice is to take Lords amendments en bloc, but if hon. Members wish to deal with them separately, the Chair will have to take account


of that wish. I would be willing to hear argument as to why particular amendments should be taken separately instead of taking them all en bloc.

Mr. Martin Redmond: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was a member of the Committee which considered the Bill. No objections were raised at that time, but subsequently I put my name to the blocking motion. That was because certain matters came to light. The sub judice rule means that it would be extremely difficult to say anything that did not conflict with what the police are saying. As that action has been taken today, would it not be more acceptable if you were to withdraw the Bill and allowed it to be considered on another occasion when the Director of Public Prosecutions might be in a position to bring charges?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman and the House know that the Lords amendments before us are narrow and do not seem directly connected with the matters alluded to in these points of order. It might make sense to see how we get on. I remind hon. Members that, although the sub judice law does not apply when the House is considering legislation, the debate has to be confined to the narrow terms of the amendments before us.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I agree with the suggestion that we should debate the amendments together, but may we have the opportunity to vote on them separately if that is wished?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair will certainly be willing to give a sympathetic response to that, subject to the qualification that, when I consider the amendments carefully, some may be linked or hinge on each other and therefore it may not be appropriate to have a separate decision on every one. If it is appropriate and right hon. and hon. Members wish to have a separate Division, they will not find the Chair unresponsive.

Mr. Redmond: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it possible to obtain a copy of the Lords amendments? I have only received the broad brush version from the parliamentary agents and unfortunately I do not have the amendments. I have been to the Vote Office several times. I am a relatively new Member of the House. Could you tell me whether it is possible to obtain a copy?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's feigned naivety shocks the Chair. I understand that copies of the amendments should be available and are available in the Vote Office. I hope that the hon Gentleman will be able to get a copy.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We ought to re-examine the County NatWest affair and the arrests that have been made more thoroughly. There are hon. Members in the House who have clear connections with that bank.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I urge the hon. Gentleman to follow the example of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) and obtain a copy of the amendments

from the Vote Office. When he looks at them, he will realise that it is hard to see any link between the point which he is trying to raise and the Lords amendments.

Mr. Skinner: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point is not about the amendments that have come from the other place, but about the Bill. I am saying that there are so many Tory Members who have direct or indirect interests in the National Westminster bank and County Natwest, including the hon. Member for——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that hon. Members have an obligation to declare their interests. If a question of direct interest arises, doubtless the hon. Members concerned will make their interests known. That does not arise in the Lords amendments before us.

Mr. Skinner: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not just talking about National Westminster bank. What about Blue Arrow? For example, the right hon. Member for Chingford——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not know what Blue Arrow has to do with the debate——

Mr. Skinner: I will tell you what it has to do with it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not prepared to allow the hon. Gentleman to give a long explanation of how he thinks Blue Arrow may be connected with it. The motion before the House is that we consider the Lords amendments. I beg the hon. Gentleman to obtain a copy of these amendments, then he will understand that it is difficult to link the matter he is trying to raise with the issue before the House.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Bill is faulty. Today the fraud squad is getting involved with people connected with the higher echelons of that bank, and the Bill was brought to the House by those same people. In view of that fact, I say that the Bill should be abandoned. Let us get rid of it, and bring it back when all this has been settled. Surely that is the point—we are to debate the bank when its top people are up to their necks in it. They have been making money hand over fist with leveraged buy-outs and Conservative Members are involved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: These are not matters which are admissible in the debate on the Lords amendments. Doubtless right hon. and hon. Members will bear them in mind, but they are not relevant to the debate, or to the decisions which have to be made.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The promoters of the Bill have sent us a letter to explain that the amendments are necessary because Speaker's Counsel and others have suggested that there are errors in the way in which the Bill was originally drafted. To clear up those problems it has had to be drafted again. It seems odd that a respected bank, with experienced legal representatives, should have received advice and presented a Bill to the House which turns out to have been badly drafted. Do you not feel, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it calls into question the quality of all the advice that the bank has received on a wide range of issues? Therefore, I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was entitled to raise the issue of——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The quality of the advice which the bank has received is not a matter for me, or for our debate. I suggest that we get on with the debate. The hon. Gentleman correctly identified the matter before the House when he said that the Lords amendments are drafting amendments to correct errors in the Bill. That is the substance of what they amount to.

Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice. We have to consider 10 amendments to a Bill concerned with vesting in National Westminster Bank plc. Until the debate is pursued, I shall not be able to understand the significance of the 10 amendments. However, is it your ruling that, when we debate the amendments, we cannot debate the wider principles involved in the Bill? May it not emerge from the debate on specific amendments that we are concerned with the general nature of the Bill?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has put the matter correctly—these are essentially drafting amendments to correct part of the Bill. The House will certainly be given the opportunity to discuss and consider each amendment. We had better see how the debate progresses, then perhaps we shall see if the other issues alluded to in the various points of order are relevant.

Mr. Barnes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If we discover that the 10 amendments have greater import or significance for the general nature of the Bill, will that affect procedure at a later stage? Is that possible?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We should see how we proceed. Let us get on.

Motion made—[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means]—and Question put, That the Lords amendments be now considered:—

The House divided:Ayes 160, Noes 49.

Division No. 387]
[7.28 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Carttiss, Michael


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Chapman, Sydney


Amess, David
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Amos, Alan
Colvin, Michael


Arbuthnot, James
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Couchman, James


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Aspinwall, Jack
Dorrell, Stephen


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Dover, Den


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Dunn, Bob


Baldry, Tony
Durant, Tony


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Dykes, Hugh


Bellingham, Henry
Eggar, Tim


Benyon, W.
Emery, Sir Peter


Bevan, David Gilroy
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Boswell, Tim
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Bowis, John
Fookes, Dame Janet


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Forman, Nigel


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gale, Roger


Brazier, Julian
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bright, Graham
Gill, Christopher


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Buck, Sir Antony
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Burt, Alistair
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Butler, Chris
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Butterfill, John
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Gregory, Conal


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Carrington, Matthew
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)





Ground, Patrick
Mudd, David


Grylls, Michael
Neubert, Michael


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hague, William
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hampson, Dr Keith
Paice, James


Harris, David
Patnick, Irvine


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Pawsey, James


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hill, James
Portillo, Michael


Hordern, Sir Peter
Powell, William (Corby)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Renton, Tim


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Rhodes James, Robert


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Rowe, Andrew


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Ryder, Richard


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Irvine, Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)


Jack, Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Janman, Tim
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Shersby, Michael


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Sims, Roger


Kilfedder, James
Stanbrook, Ivor


Kirkwood, Archy
Stern, Michael


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Stevens, Lewis


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Knox, David
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Lawrence, Ivan
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Lightbown, David
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Lilley, Peter
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Lord, Michael
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Trippier, David


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Viggers, Peter


Maclean, David
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Walden, George


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Mans, Keith
Wallace, James


Maples, John
Waller, Gary


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Watts, John


Mates, Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Wiggin, Jerry


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wilkinson, John


Miller, Sir Hal
Wilshire, David


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Wood, Timothy


Mitchell, Sir David



Monro, Sir Hector
Tellers for the Ayes:


Morrison, Sir Charles
Mr. Roger King and


Moss, Malcolm
Mr. Roger Kanapman.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Meale, Alan


Barron, Kevin
Michael, Alun


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Morley, Elliot


Boyes, Roland
Nellist, Dave


Caborn, Richard
O'Brien, William


Callaghan, Jim
Pike, Peter L.


Corbyn, Jeremy
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Cryer, Bob
Quin, Ms Joyce


Cummings, John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Short, Clare


Dixon, Don
Skinner, Dennis


Dobson, Frank
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Spearing, Nigel


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Vaz, Keith


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Wall, Pat


Harman, Ms Harriet
Wareing, Robert N.


Haynes, Frank
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Wigley, Dafydd


Home Robertson, John
Winnick, David


Hoyle, Doug
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)



Janner, Greville
Tellers for the Noes:


Lamond, James
Mr. Michael Welsh and


Leighton, Ron
Mr. Martin Redmond.


Litherland, Robert

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendments considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed,That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendments.—[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In the light of the foregoing points of order, it might be sensible if the House were to discuss the amendments collectively; if hon. Members wish to have separate Divisions on all or some of the amendments, perhaps they would indicate that to the Chair and sympathetic consideration will be given to any such request.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you explain what procedures the House is adopting? A private Bill is normally steered through the House by an hon. Member, who gives reasons for the amendments. The amendments were moved by the Second Deputy Chairman without any explanation. Will an hon. Member be called to put forward the proposals on behalf of the promoters of the Bill?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is open to any hon. Member in charge of a private Bill, should he so wish in the circumstances before the House, to volunteer an explanation of the Lords amendments. The House must bear in mind that any hon. Member is entitled to speak only once, other than with the express consent of the House, on any Lords amendment. Therefore, an hon. Member in charge of a Bill may prefer to respond to points made rather than to volunteer a statement at the outset. The Chair will recognise any hon. Member wishing to respond to points raised in the debate. I ask the House to bear in mind that even an hon. Member in charge of a Bill is allowed to speak only once on a Lords amendment.

Mr. Redmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is early in the evening, but later I may be asked to act as a Teller. What would be the procedure if there were a scuffle in the exit of the lobby? Would I have to leave, protect myself or seek your guidance?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is purely hypothetical. We shall deal with problems when they arise.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There will be a short debate on the amendments. Is an hon. Member present on behalf of the promoters to respond to comments made in the debate? If so, will he be prepared to do so?

Sir Peter Emery: I should be happy to answer any questions put in the debate.

Mr. Michael Welsh: I should like to speak to a number of the amendments. The first amendment is to clause 4, page 3, line 12. Its purpose is to leave out "having regard to" and to insert "by reason of". I cannot see the reason for the amendment.
Parliamentary agents cost much money. It is their duty to present correct Bills on behalf of the organisations which pay them much money for their work. I cannot foresee any reason for the amendment, unless there is an ulterior motive. If there is, I should like to know. If it is better English, we should like to know; if it is better grammar, we should like to know; and if it is better parliamentary wording, we should like to know. I am sure

that the people who are financing the Bill would like to know why they must again pay parliamentary agents. I do not want to press that to a vote.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that there are several undercurrents to the debate, one of which is how private business has been conducted in the House? Is it appropriate for hon. Members to have to spend much time on Second Reading and further time in Committee and on Report when the Bill was not presented in its correct form? Is there not a strong argument for not proceeding with these private Bills in this way? A company such as a bank——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I must remind the House—the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh) has the Floor—that we are considering Lords amendments that deal with comparatively narrow issues. The debate must be restricted to that.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Further to that point of order——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It was not a point of order but an intervention. I have explained that the hon. Gentleman's intervention was out of order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Doncaster, North will not be tempted down that road. I call the hon. Member for Doncaster, North.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Further to that point of order——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It was not a point of order. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) intervened, but I explained to the hon. Member for Doncaster, North that the points that he made would not be relevant in the debate.

Mr. Welsh: My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) said that there is an undercurrent to the debate, but it is more like an overdraft.
The hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) is well versed in these matters, so I am sure that he will give a good and lengthy reply to the debate and explain the reason for the Lords amendments.
I should like to speak to the amendment to clause 4, page 3, line 14. This amendment is serious, especially in the light of certain things that happened in the City today. The amendment aims to insert the words
in the opinion of the directors of the Bank".
Without the amendment, the Bill reads,
in pursuance of a requirement made under subsection (2) above should be later than the appointed day".
Why insert
in the opinion of the directors of the Bank
in the Bill? It is not necessary, as today's events show.

Mr. Cryer: Does not that amendment and the amendment to leave out "having regard to" and insert "by reason o' mean that the directors can set aside the law of any country or territory outside the United Kingdom with respect to vesting property? Would my hon. Friend care to reflect on today's circumstances and the extra powers that the amendments appear to confer on the directors by setting aside the law?

Mr. Welsh: I thank my hon. Friend for bringing that matter to my notice. We are told that the amendments are narrow. but sometimes they can be dangerous. I like to think that, in discussing such a Bill, we aim to protect everyone, especially those who invest. We are talking about pension funds and so on and I cannot understand how these measures can protect them in any way. I am not saying anything about the activities of the directors. That matter is sub judice and has nothing to do with me. However, everything is not right with the bank at present.
The Chairman of Ways and Means said that he would consider Members' wishes on any important issues on which heads should be counted.

Mr. Skinner: The first amendment is very wide. It would leave out "having regard to" the law of any country and insert "by reason of'. Insertion of "by reason of" will mean that the law is binding. For example, a person who has money invested in the Cayman Islands, the Isle of Man or some other offshore outfit has to take account of the binding law. Suppose that that person had made enough money and shared it with Ken Dodd, or someone else, and decided to put some money in Poland because some idiot had said, "Poland is a decent place. It is changing." Suppose the business were subsidised to the hilt and someone said, "Put some of the NatWest money in Poland". I can imagine some Conservative Members saying, "Hold on. Can we be sure that our money will be sound with Jaruzelski and Lech Walesa and the Pope?" That person would have to say, "Just a minute. This is binding." Originally, it was a matter of "having regard to", so the directors could say that they were only "having regard to" the law of any dodgy country and its investments. If the amendment is carried and "by reason of is inserted, they will be tied hand and foot. As has been said, this is a narrow amendment. That means that an investor can either forget such an idea or be tied to a country. Just imagine having money in the——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is enough for an intervention.

Mr. Skinner: We shall come to it later. It is a good seam of coal.

Mr. Welsh: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for helping in his usual shy and reserved way. It is good of him to come to the aid of an ordinary Back-Bencher who is not as involved as my hon. Friend in every aspect of the House——

Mr. Greg Knight: And in banking.

Mr. Welsh: And in banking. I should declare that I have a bank account with NatWest. I do not understand why—I suppose that it is the same for everyone—but every time my bank manager writes to me, he writes in red ink. He is a Socialist.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I realise that the hon. Member was deflected from his speech by a remark from the Government Benches, but I am sure that he will restrict himself to the amendments.

Mr. Welsh: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Back-Benchers who are not satisfied with the answers that they get from the hon. Member for Honiton may request a vote.

Sir Peter Emery: In an intervention, not a speech, may I point out that the words "having regard to" could be taken to mean that the directors would not take account of all the laws of the countries in which accounts were held. The authorities in those countries might think that that was not fair. The bank wishes to abide by the laws of all the countries in which accounts are held, which is why "by reason or' is to be inserted. The provision
in the opinion of the directors of the Bank
is to be inserted so that the vesting day can be varied if certain of the countries in which the accounts are held wish to do so, for reasons of their own. That provision has been made in the Hambros legislation and in another Bill, so it is not that unusual. I hope that my comment helps the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Welsh: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for helping me.

Mr. Cryer: The hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) said that the amendment moves the bank closer to the law. In effect, the Bill provides for a fusion of two banks. One amendment makes it clear that the vesting—which is required by the law which the hon. Member for Honiton claims the bank wishes to recognise—can take place, in the opinion of the directors, on a date later than the vesting day required by law. One amendment says that the directors must abide by the law and another says that the director will have the discretion to avoid it.

Mr. Welsh: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The banks want to operate within the law, but I am worried about a different issue—whether the directors want to operate within the law. I have been told to limit my remarks to the amendments, which concern the directors. No one can say that directors keep within the law. If they did, there would not have been that raid this morning. Sometimes the banks need to be protected from their directors.

Sir Peter Emery: No directors of NatWest or the International Westminster bank have been affected in any way by today's events. Knowing the hon. Gentleman's desire to be fair, I think that he would not want the statement that he has just made to stand on the record.

Mr. Welsh: I am saying only that the fraud squad has called on some houses, as has happened in other undertakings in the City. I should like to think that all directors had clean hands, but they are raided every other day. If they were all as innocent as the men who drink in workings men's clubs, everything in the City would be lovely. As it is, the banks themselves—never mind the people—may have to be protected against their own directors.

8 pm

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend may recall that when Lloyds promoted a private Bill in 1981 which gave the accounts of Lloyds almost complete immunity from any legal process, we received assurance after assurance that those promoting the Bill were as white as the driven snow and completely without stain on their honour. Yet shortly after the Bill was passed, scandal after scandal piled up in Lloyds. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should look at assurances with a critical eye?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House once more that we are dealing with Lords amendments and that the debate must be restricted to them. It is not in order to broaden it into a wide debate on banking practice.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You are right to say that we must find ways and means of sticking to this group of amendments. In this case, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh) is speaking primarily about the two amendments to clause 4. I am sure that you are aware of those important amendments.
The point of order on which I seek clarification is whether my hon. Friend is allowed to speak broadly on the issue. As the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) said, the amendments change the relationship of the directors to the country. They cannot just have "regard to" the laws of any country, but must stick to the laws of the country because the amendment seeks to insert "by reason or. The provision becomes binding and it is a wide amendment. My hon. Friend can properly say that the directors must bear in mind the law of the country totally and utterly, as the Prime Minister might say, on a regular basis instead of having a passive affinity with it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Doncaster, North is perfectly capable of looking after himself and keeping in order, as I am sure he will.

Mr. Welsh: I am now speaking to the amendment which says;
in the opinion of the directors of the Bank.
The amendment was tabled as a second thought and it may be dangerous—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to carry on.

Mr. Welsh: The amendment is important with regard to the directors because it is about international deals, not about deals in this country. Every hon. Member has had complaints about an overseas investment that went wrong in Gibraltar, including the hon. Member for Honiton himself. The hon. Member for Honiton may think that I am wrong, but I do not think that we should allow the chance of such events happening again. When we move to a vote later, if you will allow it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want my head to be counted.
The International Westminster bank will deal with pension funds and it may even deal with miners' pension funds. Things may go wrong and the directors may get into trouble. I am sure that most of the directors are honest, straightforward chaps, but there are always some bad apples in the barrel. If things go wrong, nobody can say that the hon. Member for Doncaster, North did not vote against the amendments. It may not mean a great deal to most hon. Members, but it means a great deal in constituencies like mine, where people are predominantly working class and honest. They like to think that their Members of Parliament try their best to protect everyone. The only way to protect their interests in this House is by a count of heads in a vote.

Mr. Skinner: Before my hon. Friend leaves the amendment dealing with the power of directors, I want to point out that directors, as my hon. Friend knows only too well, have tremendous power. They have more power than

trade union leaders, for example. They do not have to go on strike and they do not bother about ballots when they are asset-stripping or when they have a leveraged buy-out. I want my hon. Friend to turn his attention to the question of directors having that power, which is raised by this amendment rather than later ones, and whether the power should go to the people who work in the banks by means of a ballot. We hear much about ballots.
We should oppose this amendment. Perhaps my hon. Friend has a different view, but I believe that it should be opposed on the ground that it does not compel directors to concede a ballot to the people who work in the bank. If we developed that argument, we might be able to see a bit more light at the end of the National Westminster tunnel.

Mr. Welsh: My hon. Friend is right; he has made a vital point. However, as you drew to my attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we must confine our remarks to the Bill and the amendments. There are many other matters that I should like to mention, and many other hon. Members would like to deal with shortcomings in undertakings outside the City, but we must stick to the amendments.
I have a question about another amendment that may be important and the hon. Member for Honiton may be able to explain how it will protect people. The amendment applies to clause 5 and seeks to leave out
whether made before, on or after
and insert "made before." Perhaps I should not be, but I am suspicious by nature and I cannot help it. I am suspicious when I see an amendment that means that if anyone signs something on that day or after that day, it is not covered by the Bill.

Mr. Skinner: Which amendment is that?

Mr. Welsh: The amendment applies to line 42 of clause 5. I suspect that it seeks to give the directors powers that they do not deserve to have. The clause was written by the parliamentary draftsmen and did not come off the top of someone's head. The draftsmen must have phrased the clause in that way for good reasons. It may have been to protect investors on the day of vestment or after. Perhaps the hon. Member for Honiton can explain why the promoters came to the conclusion that the clause should be amended. Will anybody suffer from that amendment, or are people being protected? My innocence in these matters can easily be seen. All I want is an explanation of the amendment so that we can study it in some depth.
I want to deal next with some other serious amendments that seek to remove words from the Bill. One amendment that applies to line 10 of clause 6 seeks to leave out "omitted" and insert "not to be done". There must be a good reason for that. An identical amendment applies to line 14. Perhaps the original words were not parliamentary language. If they were not parliamentary language, they should not have been included in the Bill in the first place because the parliamentary agents drew it up. If the amendments could cause damage or hurt people, we are obliged to vote on them. Perhaps the hon. Member for Honiton can give me a reasonable answer that might increase my knowledge of international banking.
I am also concerned about the amendment to clause 11: 'page 6, leave out from ("1963") in line 26 to ("as") in line 27. There must be a reason for this amendment. Why were those words included in the Bill originally, if they must be withdrawn now? The important point relates to the Stock Transfer Act 1963. The Bill refers to the Stock Exchange


(Completion of Bargains) Act 1976. That has been removed by the amendment. The words were included in good faith.
Another of the Lords amendments relates to clause 15, page 7——

Mr. Skinner: The amendment to clause 11 leaves out the words from "1963". That was a pretty good year. It was Profumo year. That was when Macmillan got prostate trouble. He had a diplomatic illness and a new Prime Minister was needed. I can see 1989 or 1990 being a replica of 1963. The Prime Minister will get a diplomatic illness and some grey-suited men will come along and say, "Enough's enough. You had better get off." The Prime Minister will be able to travel round the world and deposit her money in the International Westminster bank in all the countries to which the Bill refers——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Doncaster, North is perfectly in order. He is developing his arguments which are in order. The only thing that worries me is that every time he is interrupted, he is invited to go out of order.

Mr Welsh: Well, 1963 may have been a nice year, but it was not a very good year for me. I had an accident in a colliery after I returned from Ruskin college. I remember it very well.
Another of the Lords amendments amends clause 15. It states:
'Clause 15, page 8 leave out from ("(b)") in line 33 to ("and") in line 38 and insert ("the reference in subsection (3) of Section 11 (Evidence of Vesting) of this Act to the Stock Transfer Act 1963 shall include a reference to the Stock Transfer Act (Northern Ireland) 1963;")'
The Bill as it stands reads very differently. Why should the Stock Exchange (Completion of Bargains) Act 1976 be excluded'? Will somebody tell me why?

Mr. Skinner: I will tell my hon. Friend why. The National Westminster bank is experiencing serious trouble at the moment and many of its leading lights have been caught by the fraud squad. Some of them have been handcuffed and put inside. However, very few are actually done. The law in this country is supposed to be straight and above board for everyone. Most of the people who get done here are those who get a couple of bob out of the Department of Social Security. The directors and the people in the City usually get away with it.
8.15 pm
Why is the reference to the Stock Exchange (Completion of Bargains) Act 1976 left out of the Bill? It is excluded because it refers to the amount of money being made by the people who run the bank. The last thing that they want people to know is that the Bill contains an opportunity for completion of bargains on the stock exchange. That does not apply to many people who invest in the National Westminster bank; it is all about the directors making a small fortune——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Doncaster, North will stick to the amendment, as he has been doing.

Mr. Welsh: The amendment to page 8 of clause 15 is narrow, but very important. I am speaking to the amendments, but I understand the feeling of many hon. Members on both sides of the House who may be involved

in these matters. I am not used to dealing with finance. I still give my wife £25 a week and spoil her like most men spoil their wives. That is as far as I go in finance.
Perhaps the reason for the amendment is that the parliamentary agents are correcting an error. The boys in the City may think that the parliamentary agents are all right, but they are tying their hands.
Why must we drag Northern Ireland into this? The Bill refers to the Stock Exchange (Completion of Bargains) (Northern Ireland) Order 1977. That is removed from the Bill and substituted with the Stock Transfer Act (Northern Ireland) 1963. What is so sacrosanct about the 1963 Act? No one seems to want the other Acts. There must be an answer for this.

Mr. Skinner: There might be a clue here. Although I might never be in the position of introducing a Bill on behalf of a bank,—I am playing the devil's advocate here—I would want to consider what happened in Northern Ireland a few years ago. I would remember De Lorean, the money, corruption and fiddling. Two Governments allowed large sums of taxpayers' money to be salted away. We had better make sure——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Doncaster, North is being as good as gold. He is speaking to the amendments. Unfortunately, he continues to be corrupted by interventions that have nothing to do with the amendments. I hope that all hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), will allow the hon. Member for Doncaster, North, who is perfectly in order, to develop his arguments.

Mr. Welsh: I will stick to the amendments because that is my job. However, I always support people who want more freedom. I will follow your wishes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Why is the 1963 Act sacrosanct? Why is nothing else allowed? Why has it been taken out? There may be good reasons for that, but as a layman I can see no good reason for its removal other than for ulterior motives. No other Act is entertained even though there may be other reasonable Acts.

Sir Peter Emery: It really is quite simple. The Stock Exchange (Completion of Bargains) Act 1976 is material only insofar as it amends the Stock Transfer Act 1963. Accordingly, it would be best to omit altogether the reference to that Act because the 1963 Act applies. The amendment to clause 15 is tabled for the same reason. It refers to the 1976 Act and, therefore, to the Stock Exchange (Completion of Bargains) (Northern Ireland) Order 1977. The words are to be omitted because they are unnecessary and for no other reason.

Mr. Welsh: I cannot say that the parliamentary agents are incompetent. I do not know any of those gentlemen, but I know that they are well-trained and reasonably efficient. Many of the amendments drafted by civil servants are foolish, but that is not the case with parliamentary agents. They are well paid and efficient. They may have included the amendments as a long-stop.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend seems to accept that parliamentary agents cannot do anything wrong. I cannot accept that. As my hon. Friend knows, people make mistakes. On the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill, which we are not discussing now, the parliamentary agents


did a far from splendid job, and we tried to amend that Bill. I wonder whether my hon. Friend will rephrase what he said about parliamentary agents. They can do only what they are instructed to do and they were instructed by people whom the hon. Member for Honiton knows very well.
My hon. Friend should not think of the parliamentary agents as golden angels. He must think about the City of London asking how it can make more money. That is the principle behind this and it is why the amendments have been tabled. Somebody along the way has said, "We had better amend the Bill in the House of Lords where they are all dropping off to sleep. Do not do it in the House of Commons because somebody might spot it. If we do that we can make a bit on the side." Money is the reason. The parliamentary agents are not acting alone. Their mentors have said, "Get that changed and sharp".

Mr. Welsh: My hon. Friend may have a good point. That is a possibility, but we cannot say that it happens for sure. However, I have some sympathy with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover.
There is an amendment to an amendment—I thought that that was impossible. Therefore, no one is too sure about this. I do not know too much about finance but I have my suspicions.

Mr. Skinner: It is obvious that my hon. Friend is rightly concerned about the amendments. I have already suggested one possible reason for the amendments, but there is another. My hon. Friend says that he does not know about finance but he is not kidding me. He is the treasurer of the all-party group of non-profit-making clubs. Therefore, he is in charge of about threepence ha'penny a week.
Suppose that my first fear—that they are doing it because the bosses are telling them—is not correct. Let us suppose that the parliamentary agents are making money on commission and on the basis of work done in the same way as lawyers—which is really what they are. Somebody may say, "If we can slip in a dozen amendments in the Lords, it will increase our commission". This is the lesser of my two proposals. However, a Machiavellian parliamentary agent may have said, "The longer it goes, the more money I make." Therefore, they might not be too keen on the Bill receiving a speedy passage. My hon. Friend likes the parliamentary agents, but I wonder whether he would favour my second proposition.

Mr. Welsh: My hon. Friend may have a point. I do not know how parliamentary agents are paid, but their job is to work on private Bills. The sooner such Bills are abolished the better. Perhaps, as my hon. Friend said, they include things knowing they will have to amend them later. That happens with many legal people. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover may have a point, but we do not know.
On the removal of the references to the Stock Exchange (Completion of Bargains) Act 1976 and the Stock Exchange (Completion of Bargains) (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 the parliamentary agents may be creating a loophole that we have not spotted. Those references should remain in the Bill.

Mr. Skinner: That is too Machiavellian. I do not believe that parliamentary agents would do that. They are into money, and there is also the second proposition that I have described. There is a third possible explanation but it is the least favoured of my ideas. A Left-wing parliamentary agent may have been listening to the debates on the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill. He may think that he can help by trying to stop the Bill which will create a massive balance of payments problem for Britain because of the imported coal. He may say, "I will draft some esoteric amendments so that the Bill can be dragged out." That may be going too far, but it is more plausible than my hon. Friend's argument.

Mr. Welsh: My hon. Friend may have a valid point, but I am describing what has happened. We have been told by the sponsors of the Bill that the words to be omitted are not necessary and do not do anything. If that is the case, why did the parliamentary agents include them?

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: My hon. Friend must be careful. I do not think that the agents wanted to include the amendments. We have been given a document that tells us why the Bill's promoter wants us to continue with the Bill. If my hon. Friend looks at that, he will see that the recommendation for the change came about as a result of consultation with Counsel to the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords and includes alterations agreed with Counsel to Mr. Speaker. I am puzzled. I understand the role that those two people perform in the House, but why were the recommendations suggested to the Counsel to Mr. Speaker not put forward in this place before the Bill went to the House of Lords?
Those individuals must have recommended alterations for good reasons. Can my hon. Friend explain what those reasons were and the implications of forcing them on the parliamentary agents who may not have wanted to take up more time by bringing the Bill back? They must be important because I am sure that officers of the House would not want to delay the Bill without good reason.

Mr. Welsh: If that is correct and the bank sponsors have no desire for the amendments, it is all the more reason why the Bill should be left as it is. If someone else wants the Bill amended, we should vote for the Bill as it is written. There might be good reason to leave the Bill as it is to protect people when others may not want them to be protected.

Mr. Skinner: There may be a simple answer. We have a Bill that is not well written. It has been produced by lawyers who earn £100,000 a year. We know what it is like as they want 20 quid to write a letter for our constituents. The Bill is drafted and it is a bit cock-eyed, so someone comes along and says that it must be altered. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) asked why those alterations were not made in the House of Commons. As I said earlier, the answer is that they can slip such changes through in the House of Lords because no one can be bothered. People up there fall asleep and it is conceivable that that is why those changes were made in the House of Lords late on. I have put forward all sorts of propositions to my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North, but perhaps it is just a simple matter of neglect. The i's must be dotted and the t's crossed somewhere, so the Bill is taken to the House of Lords.

Mr. Welsh: My hon. Friend may have a point. If that has happened, it is all the more reason why we should vote against the amendments. It means that someone has been conniving, for want of a better word. We are not here to do such things. We are here to be honest and to protect people, even investors.
I do not believe that the amendments should be accepted by the House. The hon. Member for Honiton may say that they have the same purpose. If that is true, why cannot we have two Acts? There would be nothing wrong with double protection.
I have spoken on some of the amendments which I consider important. When the time comes, I should like to think that we could vote separately on the amendment relating to clause 4, page 3, line 14,
in the opinion of the directors of the Bank
I would also like to think that votes on amendments to clause 11, page 6, and clause 15, page 8, could be taken together.

Sir Peter Emery: I congratulate the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh) on speaking for nearly an hour about fairly precise amendments. I shall try to answer his questions clearly in the hope that that will assist the House to obtain answers about the amendments, which are fairly narrow.
The purpose of the amendments is to improve the clarity of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members have suggested that something is wrong because parliamentary agents could not get the Bill 100 per cent. right when it was produced for First Reading and Committee. Few Bills produced by Governments of either party do not require some amendment or correction. There are few parliamentary agents who get everything right the first time. I believe that it is correct—I have spent some time in the Procedure Committee to try to ensure this—that we should spend the right amount of time to make legislation as clear and as simple as humanly possible.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I refer the hon. Gentleman to page 1 of the Bill, which says:
And whereas the objects of this Act cannot be attained without the authority of Parliament"..
The first amendment refers to things that go on in other countries. Why do we have to have the authority of this House to do something that affects other countries? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we have had many problems with private legislation? I believe that there is a strong case to take such legislation away from the House. I wonder whether the International Westminster Bank Bill should be considered at all. Why is it absolutely essential—the preamble to the Bill says that it is—for the little section that relates to having regard to the laws of other countries to he included in the Bill?

Sir Peter Emery: The amendment, which leaves out "having regard to" and inserts "by reason or, ensures that the laws of any other country are abided by absolutely.

Mr. Cryer: Because of the shoddy directors at NatWest.

Sir Peter Emery: The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) does himself no credit by making remarks of that kind.
The Bill amalgamates, for the convenience of the bank and of this country in its financial dealings, the International Westminster bank, which is operating outside this country, and the National Westminster bank,

which operates in this country. The purpose is to bring the two organisations together. The laws of the overseas country in which the bank is operating will be abided by. There is no suggestion in the Bill that those laws should be overridden and there is no desire on the part of the National Westminster bank to do that.

Mr. Michael Welsh: Some countries are known as "bank havens" and there is little control, if any, over their financial transactions. If the International Westminster bank operated in such countries, it would have to be subject to our laws or investors might lose their money—as happened in Gibraltar. Has that been taken into account when discussing the operations of National Westminster and International Westminster?

Sir Peter Emery: The bank has taken that into consideration. Obviously, it wants the most stringent regulations to apply overseas as would apply here. That does not mean that the bank would seek to override the laws of another nation. It is to make that absolutely clear that the amendments have been tabled. The directors of the bank have sought the amendments to ensure that if, when dealing with its banking operations in another country, it was decided that the vesting date in that country should not be the same as for the whole of the Bill, it could be delayed. There is nothing new about that and I have already told the House that that happened with two previous banking Bills.
Questions have also been asked about the amendment relating to clause 5, page 3, line 34. The words in the brackets are unnecessary and slightly misleading. They highlight the probate of a will without referring to the alternative possibility of letters of administration. Such letters of administration may be annexed to a will or issued when the deceased has omitted to appoint any executors of his will. Therefore, those letters ensure that the matter is dealt with.
I come to clause 11, page 6, lines 26 and 27 and clause 15, page 8, lines 33 and 38. I have already said that the Stock Exchange (Completion of Bargains) Act 1976 is material only in that it amends the Stock Transfer Act 1963.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My attention has been drawn to the fact that the Serjeant at Arms is not in his place. I have never known this in my several years as a Member here and I wondered whether it was right for the House to continue when the Serjeant at Arms had been drawn away to some important matter. If any hon. Member were to become terribly unruly—not I, of course—there would be a problem and I thought that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, might like to consider this.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The debate is proceeding in good order and I am sure that the Serjeant at Arms is within the precincts.

Sir Peter Emery: As the amendments to the 1963 Act become part of the Act there is no need for reference to be made to the 1976 Act and it would be misleading to include it. The hon. Member for Doncaster, North has already explained why it is unnecessary. Therefore, it has been deleted and that applies equally to the Stock Transfer (Northern Ireland) Act 1963.
The group of amendments attempts to clarify the Bill, make it more easily understood and allow the National Westminster bank to operate as efficiently as humanly


possible after the amalgamation of its two organisations. That will benefit the country. An extensive amount of work is carried out by this company internationally, and the Bill will help this nation's economy. I should have thought that the House would want to hasten the Bill through. Most organisations would not have to come to the House if they want to bring together their overseas and domestic sections. The Bill is necessary because we are dealing with a bank which is structured under the Banking Act 1987.
The House will divide if necessary, but I hope that it will give a fair wind to the National Westminster bank in trying to do what it can financially for this country's benefit.

Mr. Roger Knapman: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 111, Noes 36.

Division No. 389]
[8.53 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Durant, Tony


Amos, Alan
Eggar, Tim


Arbuthnot, James
Emery, Sir Peter


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Baldry, Tony
Fookes, Dame Janet


Benyon, W.
Forman, Nigel


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gale, Roger


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Boswell, Tim
Gill, Christopher


Bowis, John
Glyn, Dr Alan


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Buck, Sir Antony
Ground, Patrick


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hague, William


Carrington, Matthew
Hampson, Dr Keith


Chapman, Sydney
Harris, David


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hayward, Robert


Colvin, Michael
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Holt, Richard


Couchman, James
Hordern, Sir Peter


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Dorrell, Stephen
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey






Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Renton, Tim


Hunter, Andrew
Rhodes James, Robert


Irvine, Michael
Ryder, Richard


Jack, Michael
Sackville, Hon Tom


Janman, Tim
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Sims, Roger


Kilfedder, James
Squire, Robin


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lightbown, David
Stern, Michael


Lilley, Peter
Stevens, Lewis


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Maclean, David
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Summerson, Hugo


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mans, Keith
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Viggers, Peter


Miller, Sir Hal
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Waller, Gary


Monro, Sir Hector
Widdecombe, Ann


Mudd, David
Wilkinson, John


Neubert, Michael
Wood, Timothy


Nicholson, David (Taunton)



Patnick, Irvine
Tellers for the Ayes:


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Mr. Roger King and


Porter, David (Waveney)
Mr. Roger Knapman.




NOES


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Meale, Alan


Barron, Kevin
Morgan, Rhodri


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Nellist, Dave


Boateng, Paul
O'Brien, William


Boyes, Roland
Pike, Peter L.


Cryer, Bob
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Skinner, Dennis


Dixon, Don
Vaz, Keith


Dobson, Frank
Wall, Pat


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Haynes, Frank



Home Robertson, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Mr. Martin Redmond


Lamond, James
Mr. Michael Welsh.


Litherland, Robert

Question accordingly agreed to

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): It is customary to put all the Lords amendments together——

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In view of that reaction, I think that the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh) lays particular emphasis on the second amendment——

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: So be it; I shall put the Question on the first.

Lords amendment: In clause 4, page 3, line 12, leave out "having regard to" and insert "by reason of".

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 104,Noes27.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Have I the agreement of the House to put the remaining amendments——

Hon. Members: No.

Lords amendment: In clause 5, page 3, leave out from
"capacity" in line 34 to "and" in line 35.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House proceeded to a Division:—

Mr. Harry Barnes: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It seems that we are voting on the third amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes. I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I read out the wrong amendment. We should be voting on clause 4, page 3, line 14.

Mr. Barnes: On a further point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A problem has arisen with the material that the promoters have supplied to us. Normally a set of amendments would be supplied with amendment numbers.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's point of order after the Division.

Lords amendment: In clause 4, page 3, line 14, at end insert
in the opinion of the directors of the Bank".

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 101, Noes 23.

Division No. 390]
[9.3 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Amos, Alan
Hunter, Andrew


Arbuthnot, James
Irvine, Michael


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Jack, Michael


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Janman, Tim


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Baldry, Tony
Kilfedder, James


Benyon, W.
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Lightbown, David


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Lilley, Peter


Boswell, Tim
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Bowis, John
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Maclean, David


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
McLoughlin, Patrick


Brazier, Julian
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Mans, Keith


Buck, Sir Antony
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Miller, Sir Hal


Carrington, Matthew
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Chapman, Sydney
Monro, Sir Hector


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Moss, Malcolm


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Mudd, David


Colvin, Michael
Neubert, Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Paice, James


Couchman, James
Patnick, Irvine


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Dorrell, Stephen
Porter, David (Waveney)


Durant, Tony
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Emery, Sir Peter
Renton, Tim


Favell, Tony
Rhodes James, Robert


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Ryder, Richard


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Gale, Roger
Sims, Roger


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gill, Christopher
Stern, Michael


Glyn, Dr Alan
Stevens, Lewis


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Summerson, Hugo


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Ground, Patrick
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Viggers, Peter


Hague, William
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Waller, Gary


Harris, David
Widdecombe, Ann


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Wilkinson, John


Hayward, Robert
Wood, Timothy


Heathcoat-Amory, David



Holt, Richard
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hordern, Sir Peter
Mr. Roger King and


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Mr. Roger Knapman.


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Morley, Elliot


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
O'Brien, William


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Redmond, Martin


Barron, Kevin
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Skinner, Dennis


Boyes, Roland
Vaz, Keith


Cryer, Bob
Wall, Pat


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Wallace, James


Dixon, Don
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Haynes, Frank



Home Robertson, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Mr. Harry Barnes and


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Mr. Alan Meale.


Morgan, Rhodri

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the House agrees, I will now put the remaining Lords amendments.

Hon. Members: No.

Lords amendment: In clause 5, page 3, leave out from "capacity" in line 34 to "and" in line 35.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 85, Noes 22.

Division No. 391]
[9.15 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Durant, Tony


Amos, Alan
Eggar, Tim


Arbuthnot, James
Emery, Sir Peter


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Favell, Tony


Benyon, W.
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gale, Roger


Boswell, Tim
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Gill, Christopher


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Brazier, Julian
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Ground, Patrick


Burt, Alistair
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoin)
Hague, William


Carrington, Matthew
Harris, David


Chapman, Sydney
Hayward, Robert


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Holt, Richard


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Colvin, Michael
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Couchman, James
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Dorrell, Stephen
Hunter, Andrew





Irvine, Michael
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Jack, Michael
Renton, Tim


Janman, Tim
Rhodes James, Robert


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Ryder, Richard


Kilfedder, James
Sackville, Hon Tom


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lightbown, David
Sims, Roger


Lilley, Peter
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mans, Keith
Viggers, Peter


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Miller, Sir Hal
Waller, Gary


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Widdecombe, Ann


Monro, Sir Hector
Wilkinson, John


Mudd, David
Wood, Timothy


Neubert, Michael



Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Patnick, Irvine
Mr. Roger King and


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Mr. Roger Knapman.


Porter, David (Waveney)





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Morgan, Rhodri


Barron, Kevin
Morley, Elliot


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
O'Brien, William


Boyes, Roland
Redmond, Martin


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Skinner, Dennis


Cryer, Bob
Vaz, Keith


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Wall, Pat


Dixon, Don
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Haynes, Frank



Home Robertson, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Mr. Harry Barnes and


McFall, John
Mr. Alan Meale.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put the Question on the remaining Lords amendments.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: So be it.

Lords amendment: In clause 5, page 3, line 42, leave out
whether made before, on or after
and insert "made before".

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 100, Noes 21.

Division No. 392]
[9.27 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Amos, Alan
Hunter, Andrew


Arbuthnot, James
Irvine, Michael


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Jack, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Janman, Tim


Benyon, W.
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Bevan, David Gilroy
Kilfedder, James


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Boswell, Tim
Lightbown, David


Bowis, John
Lilley, Peter


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Brazier, Julian
Maclean, David


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Burt, Alistair
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Carrington, Matthew
Mans, Keith


Chapman, Sydney
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Miller, Sir Hal


Colvin, Michael
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Monro, Sir Hector


Couchman, James
Moss, Malcolm


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Mudd, David


Dorrell, Stephen
Neubert, Michael


Durant, Tony
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Eggar, Tim
Paice, James


Emery, Sir Peter
Patnick, Irvine


Favell, Tony
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Renton, Tim


Forman, Nigel
Rhodes James, Robert


French, Douglas
Ryder, Richard


Gale, Roger
Sackville, Hon Tom


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Gill, Christopher
Sims, Roger


Goodlad, Alastair
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Squire, Robin


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Ground, Patrick
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Grylls, Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hague, William
Viggers, Peter


Hampson, Dr Keith
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Wallace, James


Harris, David
Waller, Gary


Hayward, Robert
Widdecombe, Ann


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Wilkison, John


Hind, Kenneth
Wood, Timothy


Holt, Richard



Hordern, Sir Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Mr. Roger King, and


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Mr. Roger Knapman.


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)





NOES


Abbort, Ms Diane
Haynes, Frank


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Home Robertson, John


Barron, Kevin
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
McFall, John


Boyes, Roland
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Meale, Alan


Cryer, Bob
Nellist, Dave


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
O'Brien, William





Skinner, Dennis
Tellers for the Noes:


Vaz, Keith
Mr. Martin Redmond and


Wall, Pat
Mr. Michel Welsh.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the House agrees——

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Object.

Lords amendment: In clause 5, page 3, line 44, after "and" insert
any will made on or after the appointed day, being in either case a will".

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 92, Noes 29

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the agreement of the House I shall put——

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In that case, I will put the Question on the next amendment.

Lords amendment: In clause 6, page 4, line 10 leave out "omitted" and insert "not to be done".

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 98, Noes 22.

Division No. 393]
[9.39 pm


AYES


Amos, Alan
Holt, Richard


Arbuthnot, James
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow VI)


Benyon, W.
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hunter, Andrew


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Irvine, Michael


Boswell, Tim
Jack, Michael


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Janman, Tim


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Brazier, Julian
Kilfedder, James


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Buck, Sir Antony
Lightbown, David


Burns, Simon
Lilley, Peter


Burt, Alistair
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Carrington, Matthew
Mans, Keith


Chapman, Sydney
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Miller, Sir Hal


Colvin, Michael
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Moate, Roger


Couchman, James
Monro, Sir Hector


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Neubert, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Durant, Tony
Patnick, Irvine


Eggar, Tim
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Emery, Sir Peter
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Favell, Tony
Renton, Tim


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Rhodes James, Robert


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Sackville, Hon Tom


Fishburn, John Dudley
Sims, Roger


Fookes, Dame Janet
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Freeman, Roger
Squire, Robin


Gale, Roger
Stanbrook, Ivor


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Gill, Christopher
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Viggers, Peter


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Ground, Patrick
Wallace, James


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Widdecombe, Ann


Hague, William
Wilkinson, John


Hampson, Dr Keith
Wood, Timothy


Hanley, Jeremy
Younger, Rt Hon George


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)



Harris, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hayward, Robert
Mr. Roger King and


Hind, Kenneth
Mr. Roger Knapman.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Dixon, Don


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dobson, Frank


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Barron, Kevin
Haynes, Frank


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)


Boateng, Paul
Home Robertson, John


Boyes, Roland
Hoyle, Doug


Cryer, Bob
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Dicks, Terry
Janner, Greville






McFall, John
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Vaz, Keith


Meale, Alan
Wall, Pat


Morgan, Rhodri



Nellist, Dave
Tellers for the Noes:


O'Brien, William
Mr. Martin Redmond and


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Mr. Michael welsh.


Skinner, Dennis

Division No. 394]
[9.50 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Hunter, Andrew


Amos, Alan
Jack, Michael


Arbuthnot, James
Janman, Tim


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Kilfedder, James


Baldry, Tony
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Benyon, W.
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Lightbown, David


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Lilley, Peter


Boswell, Tim
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Maclean, David


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
McLoughlin, Patrick


Brazier, Julian
Mans, Keith


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Burns, Simon
Miller, Sir Hal


Burt, Alistair
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Moate, Roger


Carrington, Matthew
Monro, Sir Hector


Chapman, Sydney
Neubert, Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Colvin, Michael
Patnick, Irvine


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Portillo, Michael


Couchman, James
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Redwood, John


Dorrell, Stephen
Renton, Tim


Durant, Tony
Rhodes James, Robert


Emery, Sir Peter
Rowe, Andrew


Favell, Tony
Ryder, Richard


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Sims, Roger


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Fishburn, John Dudley
Squire, Robin


Freeman, Roger
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gale, Roger
Stern, Michael


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Stevens, Lewis


Gill, Christopher
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Gritfiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Griftiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Viggers, Peter


Ground, Patrick
Walker, Bill (Tside North)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Wallace, James


Hague, William
Waller, Gary


Hanley, Jeremy
Widdecombe, Ann


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Wilkinson, John


Harris, David
Wood, Timothy


Hayward, Robert
Younger, Rt Hon George


Holt, Richard



Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Mr. Michael Irvine and


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Mr. Roger Knapman.





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
McFall, John


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Meale, Alan


Barron, Kevin
Morgan, Rhodri


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Nellist, Dave


Boyes, Roland
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Cryer, Bob
Skinner, Dennis


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Dixon, Don
Wall, Pat


Haynes, Frank



Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Tellers for the Noes:


Home Robertson, John
Mr. Martin Redmond and


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Mr. Michael Welsh.

Question accordingly agreed to.

It being after Ten o'clock, consideration of Lords amendments stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That, at this day's sitting, the Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Prisons (Scotland) Bill [Lords], the Statute Law Repeals Bill [Lords] and the Opticians Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Durant.]

The House divided: Ayes 118, Noes 25.

Question accordingly agreed to.

International Westminster Bank Bill

Lords amendments again considered.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With the leave of the House, I will put the remaining Lords amendments together.

Hon. Members: No.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Objection taken.

Lords amendment: In clause 6, page 4, line 14, leave out "omitted" and insert "not to be done".

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 104, Noes 24.

Division No. 396]
[10.14 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Amos, Alan
Jack, Michael


Arbuthnot, James
Jackson, Robert


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Janman, Tim


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Baldry, Tony
Kilfedder, James


Batiste, Spencer
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Benyon, W.
Knapman, Roger


Bevan, David Gilroy
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Boswell, Tim
Lightbown, David


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Lilley, Peter


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Brazier, Julian
Maclean, David


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
McLoughlin, Patrick


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Burns, Simon
Mans, Keith


Burt, Alistair
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Carrington, Matthew
Miller, Sir Hal


Chapman, Sydney
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Moate, Roger


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Monro, Sir Hector


Colvin, Michael
Neubert, Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Patnick, Irvine


Couchman, James
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Dorrell, Stephen
Portillo, Michael


Durant, Tony
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Emery, Sir Peter
Redwood, John


Favell, Tony
Renton, Tim


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Rowe, Andrew


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Ryder, Richard


Fishburn, John Dudley
Shaw, David (Dover)


French, Douglas
Sims, Roger


Gale, Roger
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Squire, Robin


Gill, Christopher
Stanbrook, Ivor


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Stevens, Lewis


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Thorne, Neil


Ground, Patrick
Viggers, Peter


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Hague, William
Waller, Gary


Hampson, Dr Keith
Widdecombe, Ann


Hanley, Jeremy
Wilkinson, John


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Wood, Timothy


Harris, David
Younger, Rt Hon George


Heathcoat-Amory, David



Hind, Kenneth
Tellers for the Ayes:


Holt, Richard
Mr. Michael Irvine and


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Mr. Robert Hayward.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Boyes, Roland


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Cryer, Bob


Barron, Kevin
Cummings, John






Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Nellist, Dave


Dixon, Don
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Haynes, Frank
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Ruddock, Joan


Home Robertson, John
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Smith, J. P. (Vale ot Glam)


McFall, John



McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Tellers for the Noes:


Meale, Alan
Mr. Michael Welsh and


Morgan, Rhodri
Mr. Martin Redmond.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the remaining Lords amendments.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There have now been about nine votes on amendments to this Bill, and another vote on the business of the House. If you look at the number of votes that have been cast from both sides of the House throughout the Divisions on the amendments, you will note that they have remained relatively consistent.
May I seek your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker? Have we not now reached a stage where it would be appropriate for Members to vote in their places, standing up and sitting down, as has been done previously? It is clear that a great deal of time is being wasted for reasons that have nothing to do with the business before us.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. Although he must not argue it, I can tell him and the House that I am not prepared to consider his suggestion.

Lords amendment: In clause 11, page 6, leave out from "1963" in line 26 to "as" in line 27.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 102, Noes 26.

Division No. 397]
[10.27 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Durant, Tony


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Emery, Sir Peter


Amess, David
Favell, Tony


Amos, Alan
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Arbuthnot, James
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Fishburn, John Dudley


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
French, Douglas


Baldry, Tony
Gale, Roger


Bendall, Vivian
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Benyon, W.
Gill, Christopher


Bevan, David Gilroy
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Boswell, Tim
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bowis, John
Ground, Patrick


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hague, William


Brazier, Julian
Hanley, Jeremy


Bright, Graham
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Harris, David


Buck, Sir Antony
Hawkins, Christopher


Burns, Simon
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Carrington, Matthew
Hind, Kenneth


Chapman, Sydney
Holt, Richard


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Colvin, Michael
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jack, Michael


Couchman, James
Jackson, Robert


Dorrell, Stephen
Janman, Tim





Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Ryder, Richard


Kilfedder, James
Sims, Roger


Knapman, Roger
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Squire, Robin


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lightbown, David
Stevens, Lewis


Lilley, Peter
Summerson, Hugo


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Thorne, Neil


Miller, Sir Hal
Trippier, David


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Monro, Sir Hector
Viggers, Peter


Neubert, Michael
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Patnick, Irvine
Waller, Gary


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Widdecombe, Ann


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wilkinson, John


Portillo, Michael
Wood, Timothy


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy



Redwood, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Renton, Tim
Mr. Michael Irvine and


Rhodes James, Robert
Mr. Robert Hayward.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
McFall, John


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Barron, Kevin
Meale, Alan


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Morgan, Rhodri


Boyes, Roland
Nellist, Dave


Cryer, Bob
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Cummings, John
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Ruddock, Joan


Dewar, Donald
Skinner, Dennis


Dixon, Don
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Foster, Derek



Haynes, Frank
Tellers for the Noes


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Mr. Michael Welsh and


Home Robertson, John
Mr. Martin Redmond.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Madam Deputy Speaker: By leave of the House, I will put the Question on the remaining Lords amendments.

Hon. Members: Object.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Objection taken.

Lords amendment: In clause 15, page 8, leave out line 7.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 109, Noes 27.

Divlsion No. 398]
[10.40 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Colvin, Michael


Amess, David
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Amos, Alan
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Arbuthnot, James
Couchman, James


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Dorrell, Stephen


Bendall, Vivian
Durant, Tony


Benyon, W.
Eggar, Tim


Bevan, David Gilroy
Emery, Sir Peter


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Favell, Tony


Boswell, Tim
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Bowis, John
Fishburn, John Dudley


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Forman, Nigel


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gale, Roger


Brazier, Julian
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bright, Graham
Gill, Christopher


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Burns, Simon
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Butterfill, John
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Carrington, Matthew
Ground, Patrick


Chapman, Sydney
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hague, William






Hampson, Dr Keith
Neubert, Michael


Hanley, Jeremy
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Patnick, Irvine


Harris, David
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hind, Kenneth
Portillo, Michael


Holt, Richard
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hordern, Sir Peter
Redwood, John


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Renton, Tim


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Rhodes James, Robert


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Ryder, Richard


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Sims, Roger


Jack, Michael
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Jackson, Robert
Squire, Robin


Janman, Tim
Stanbrook, Ivor


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Stevens, Lewis


Kilfedder, James
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Summerson, Hugo


Knapman, Roger
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Thorne, Neil


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Trippier, David


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Lightbown, David
Viggers, Peter


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Waller, Gary


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Widdecombe, Ann


McLoughlin, Patrick
Wilkinson, John


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Wood, Timothy


Miller, Sir Hal



Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Moate, Roger
Mr. Michael Irvine and


Monro, Sir Hector
Mr. Robert Hayward.


Moynihan, Hon Colin





NOES


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
McFall, John


Barron, Kevin
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Meale, Alan


Boyes, Roland
Morgan, Rhodri


Cryer, Bob
Brien, William


Cummings, John
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Ruddock, Joan


Dewar, Donald
Skinner, Dennis


Dixon, Don
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Foster, Derek
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Gordon, Mildred



Haynes, Frank
Tellers for the Noes:


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Mr. Michael Welsh and


Home Robertson, John
Mr. Martin Redmond.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment: in clause 15, page 8 leave out from "(b)" in line 33 to "and" in line 38 and insert
the reference in subsection (3) of Section 11 (Evidence of Vesting) of this Act to the Stock Transfer Act 1963 shall include a reference to the Stock Transfer Act (Northern Ireland) 1963;".

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 110, Noes 27

Division No. 399]
[10.52 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Baldry, Tony


Amess, David
Bendall, Vivian


Amos, Alan
Benyon, W.


Arbuthnot, James
Bevan, David Gilroy


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Blackburn, Dr John G.





Boswell, Tim
Jack, Michael


Bottomley, Peter
Jackson, Robert


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Janman, Tim


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Brazier, Julian
Kilfedder, James


Bright, Graham
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Knapman, Roger


Buck, Sir Antony
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Burns, Simon
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lightbown, David


Carrington, Matthew
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Chapman, Sydney
McLoughlin, Patrick


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Miller, Sir Hal


Colvin, Michael
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Moate, Roger


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Couchman, James
Neubert, Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Dorrell, Stephen
Patnick, Irvine


Durant, Tony
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Eggar, Tim
Porter, David (Waveney)


Emery, Sir Peter
Portillo, Michael


Fallon, Michael
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Favell, Tony
Redwood, John


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Renton, Tim


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Rhodes James, Robert


Forman, Nigel
Rowe, Andrew


Gale, Roger
Ryder, Richard


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Shaw, David (Dover)


Gill, Christopher
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Sims, Roger


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Stanbrook, Ivor


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Ground, Patrick
Summerson, Hugo


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hague, William
Thorne, Neil


Hampson, Dr Keith
Trippier, David


Hanley, Jeremy
Viggers, Peter


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Wallace, James


Harris, David
Waller, Gary


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Wheeler, John


Hind, Kenneth
Widdecombe, Ann


Holt, Richard
Wilkinson, John


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Wood, Timothy


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey



Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Mr. Robert Hayward and


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Mr. Michael Irvine.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
McFall, John


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Meale, Alan


Barron, Kevin
Morgan, Rhodri


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Nellist, Dave


Boyes, Roland
O'Brien, William


Cryer, Bob
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Cummings, John
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Ruddock, Joan


Dewar, Donald
Skinner, Dennis


Dixon, Don
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Foster, Derek



Haynes, Frank
Tellers for the Noes:


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Mr. Martin Redmond and


Home Robertson, John
Mr. Michael Welsh.


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Isle of Wight Bill

Order read for consideration of Lords amendments.

Mr. W. Benyon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that the events that have occurred in connection with the International Westminster Bank Bill will be referred to the Procedure Committee.

Mr. Bob Cryer: We are debating whether the Lords amendments should be now considered——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. We will do that once I have had a chance to propose the question.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Lords amendments be now considered.

Mr. Cryer: We should examine the question whether the Lords amendments should be considered. There is no record of the reasons for the amendments, because they were dealt with in an Unopposed Private Bill Committee in another place. There is no record of that, so hon. Members in this place considering legislation that will be binding in law have no reasons for considering the amendments. That is extraordinary in a legislature which I thought prided itself on the degree of scrutiny and on the availability of the records when hon. Members debate issues.
I should have thought that on the night when the Berlin wall is being removed and the gates are open we should not tolerate taking amendments from a section of the legislature that is operating behind closed doors. Surely we need more open examination. On that basis we should not consider the amendments.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will my hon. Friend recapitulate for a moment? I understand that the record of the proceedings on this private Bill are not available and were dealt with behind closed doors. This is the so-called Mother of Parliaments which is supposed to spread its wings to the rest of the Commonwealth and the world. On the eve of televising Parliament, are we supposed to consider amendments that were dealt with in a hole-in-the-corner manner? The Prime Minister is supposed to be saving the world, but we are supposed to deal with the amendments in this cock-eyed fashion. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) is Chairman of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Will he raise these issues with his Committee?

Mr. Cryer: I wish that I could——

Mr. Barry Field: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If that is the view of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), can you confirm whether the South Yorkshire Light Rail Transit Bill will be treated in the same way when it comes before the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. One Bill at a time.

Mr. Cryer: I can assure all hon. Members that my speech extends far and wide. I should have thought that it was very important that this legislature should exercise its scrutiny. We do not do that often enough. Certain Acts that give people powers go through far too easily. We

authorise huge sums of money on the nod. We must look at ourselves, and the procedures relating to Bills such as this deserve to be scrutinised.
The hon. Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon) said on a point of order that the proceedings on the International Westminster Bank Bill should be sent to the Procedure Committee. I do not object to that proposal. We have a new Leader of the House who is fresh from travels abroad. I know that he will take that suggestion into account when considering whether we can improve our procedures.
We are considering amendments from a non-elected body further down the Corridor and we should have a record of the arguments advanced. The other place is accountable to no one, but when it makes decisions on amendments we are not given its reasons for so doing.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: This Bill deals with important civil rights issues—the rights of people to assemble freely for whatever purpose, and the rights of others not to be caused a nuisance by those assembled. It is a difficult matter and it should be dealt with not in a private Bill, but in national legislation. We should consider how to guarantee the right of the individual to enjoy himself without at the same time upsetting other people. We must get the balance right. The way in which the Bill has been changed in the Lords alters the subtle balance between the rights of the individual and——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting on to the substance of the amendment which we have not yet reached.

Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), as I want to discuss national legislation and whether we should deal with the assembly of people in a private Bill.
I do not dissent from the efforts of a local authority to try to obtain powers, but my hon. Friend is correct that what may be a problem for one authority may well be a problem for many other authorities. Surely that problem should be the subject of national legislation rather than private legislation, especially as we cannot obtain a copy of the reasons put forward by the Lords for the amendments. The Bill concerns civil liberties and that is why it is important that we should have those reasons.

Mr. Frank Haynes: I thought that my hon. Friend would have said something about what the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) said. He threatened the Opposition about the South Yorkshire Light Rail Transit Bill. I resent such threats. The Government have been threatening us for the past fortnight. We are doing the job right, but they do not like that.

Mr. Cryer: I was appalled by the implication behind the comments of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field). I thought, however, that he meant that he intended to defy the Tory Whips in future and to ignore them when they tell him to keep his mouth shut hour after hour because that is convenient for the Government. I thought that the hon. Gentleman meant that he would make a judgment when the Whips tell him that he must stay here so that there are 100 hon. Members to shuffle through the Lobby to vote for a closure.
I thought that the hon. Gentleman intended to exercise this scrutiny and to use his mind as he is entitled to do as


a Member of Parliament. I did not realise that he was attempting to blackmail other hon. Members. If that was his intention, it would imply a serious potential breach of privilege. I would be unable to raise that attempted breach of privilege on the Floor. I would have to write to Mr. Speaker and it would have to be taken up by the Committee of Privileges.
I would hesitate to take such action in the ordinary interchange of debate. If the attempt at intimidation was real, however, and if it was an attempt to prevent me from speaking, that would be an attack on one of the important rules of Parliament—that hon. Members cannot be intimidated by threats to prevent them from speaking in this Chamber. That is an important protection for our constituents so that local authorities——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman can be assured that I shall protect him should the need arise. We should return to the motion.

Mr. Cryer: I am most grateful Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you have assured me that such an implied threat will not get anywhere in the Chamber so long as people like you are in the Chair.

Mr. Haynes: It took my hon. Friend's comments to draw the Chair. Does he not agree that the occupant of the Chair should have charged the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) when the intimidation occurred.

Mr. Cryer: The intervention from the Chair was most appropriate and helpful. My remarks drew it out, and I am grateful for it. I take a charitable view of Conservative Members' comments. They sometimes contain hidden threats which Conservative Members sometimes try to apply, but I try to see them in as charitable a light as I can. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) for making it clear that a threat was made and to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for making it clear that no threats will be made here tonight, the Standing Orders of the House will be followed and the right of free speech will be upheld.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: I fully accept the hon. Gentleman's right to scrutinise the Bill, but should such scrutiny prevent the Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) Bill from being debated, will the hon. Gentleman come to Greater Manchester to explain to the 3 million residents who desperately need that railway why he opposed the carry-over motion for that Bill?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us stick to the Isle of Wight for the time being.

Mr. Cryer: I take your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not want to breach your ruling, but I could certainly put forward some good arguments, if I were allowed to do so, about the way in which the Government have overloaded the parliamentary timetable and, as a result, prejudiced some items of legislation.

Mr. Terry Davis: Would my hon. Friend remember that, if the Government are desperate for time to consider these carry-over motions, many Members with Birmingham constituencies would willingly surrender the time allocated for the Birmingham City Council (No. 2) Bill?

Mr. Cryer: That is a pertinent comment and an example of the self-sacrifice that Birmingham Members are prepared to make to get rid of the cumbersome load known as the Birmingham City Council (No. 2) Bill.
I shall turn to the second point that I wish to make about the amendments.

Mr. Harry Barnes: It is not just that in the House of Lords the debate and the arguments hacking up the amendments are missing, but nowhere in the Lords Hansard are the amendments published. We have only this badly produced copy of amendments from the parliamentary agent, but there is nothing about the Bill on Report, when it came back from the Unopposed Bill Committee. This material is not listed in Hansard, as we would expect it to be in this House.

Mr. Cryer: Is my hon. Friend confirming that these amendments have been produced by an outside organisation—the promoters—and that they have not been produced by the internal printing organisation within the House of Commons and the House of Lords? If so, they have not been subject to the scrutiny and checking which is normally carried out by the efficient Clerks of the House. That is another reason for deferring consideration of these amendments: we should wait until the point is clarified.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: rose——

Mr. Cryer: I shall finish this point and elaborate a little.
Verbatim records of Select Committees are taken by outside shorthand firms, but the transcripts are provided for members of the Committee so that they can be corrected and improved with the approval of the Committee. I am not sure whether these amendments have been subjected to the same sort of scrutiny——

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the problems of not having had a chance to see the record is that we cannot tell what the Government's views of the amendments were? Usually a Committee on an unopposed Bill takes views from the relevant Government Departments—in this case, those of the Home Office, because of the civil liberties involved, and of the Department of the Environment. We do not know whether these amendments contain Government suggestions that they want incorporated in all local Bills, or whether they contain the views of the promoters. It would be helpful if a Minister could tell us whether these are the views of the Government or of the Isle of Wight county council.

Mr. Cryer: That is an important point. If the Minister wishes to intervene, I shall be happy to give way to him.
These amendments touch on civil liberties, the province of the Home Office, which is generally against them, and on the environment—the province of the DOE, which is responsible for local authorities.
Reform of private Bill procedure is certainly long overdue; this Bill is a good example of the reasons for that. One or two Conservative Members have asked whether we do not want to reach certain Bills further down the Order Paper, which goes to show that the Government put down all these Bills for consideration expecting and hoping them to go through on the nod.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the responsibility for setting down these Bills is mine, as Chairman of Ways and Means, not the Government's.

Mr. Cryer: You are quite right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, the number of private Bills can be swollen by the Government suggesting that certain bodies seek powers by means of the private Bill procedure. Inevitably, you have to choose what to put down. People like you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, put down legislation with the best will in the world and in good faith; Parliament then has to exercise its scrutiny, thereby showing up discrepancies and inadequacies in the procedure.

Mr. Michael Jack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman implies that in some way we are being denied the chance of proper scrutiny of this measure. He is an experienced parliamentarian, but could you confirm that hon. Members could have attended the proceedings in which the measure was scrutinised, that they could have listened, taken notes and effectively taken part, and that they could have brought back to the House the information thus gathered?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have heard nothing out of order so far.

Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to you, Sir. I thought that what I have been saying was unexceptionable—that debating shows up areas in which improvements can be made. I am only echoing the words of the Leader of the House who said today that private Bill procedure needs examination and improvement. If the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) wishes to challenge his right hon. and learned Friend's views, he is entitled to do so. I merely thought that, since the right hon. and learned Gentleman has never made an unreasonable remark before, his point should be noted.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: One of the Procedure Committee's first recommendations was that we should not have county council Bills which affect people nationally rather than locally, but that such proposals should be implemented by Government legislation. Does my hon. Friend agree that scrutiny of Government legislation is far more effective than scrutiny of private Bills such as this? All civil liberties issues could have been dealt with in Government legislation, not just for the Isle of Wight but for every county. The report recommended that there should be a miscellaneous local government Bill to deal with such matters, rather than this hole-in-the-corner private legislation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I hope that the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Cryer) will not be tempted to discuss that wide, general topic. We are considering Lords amendments to a particular Bill, and hon. Members should address their remarks to that subject.

Mr. Cryer: I am most grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will confine my remarks to the amendments.
We should not consider the amendments, because the report of the Procedure Committee has not been considered seriously enough by the Government. I am pleased that the Leader of the House is suggesting that the Committee's comments should be taken seriously. Instead

of having individual local authority Bills such as this, the amendments to which we are being asked to consider, we should have general Bills for national legislation.
That is why it would not be fruitful to consider these amendments now. It would be for better to defer consideration of the Bill. The House can certainly expess an opinion to the Government. We have often heard that reforms and improvements are needed, yet they never come about. Select Committees such as the Procedure Committee make useful suggestions for improvement, but sometimes they are not even debated.
Therefore, by not dealing with the Bill, hon. Members will have an opportunity to say to the Government, "In the next Session of Parliament we will want to tackle this problem so that local authorities do not have to promote Bills, sometimes at considerable expense." We should have a Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. We are dealing with this Bill because the Government have crowded the legislative programme. If the Government had such a local government Bill, the Isle of Wight would not have sought to promote this Bill, and the Chairman of Ways and Means would not have had his onerous task of placing it on the agenda tonight. We could have much more measured legislation, with a far superior method of scrutiny and examination.

Mr. Barry Field: From the Vote Office, the hon. Gentleman could have obtained a copy of the House of Lords Hansard of 29 June. At column 845, he would have seen that the Isle of Wight Bill was read a Second time and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee. He could have obtained that information for himself. I do not know how the hon. Gentleman can justify his comments when the Bill is supported by the Isle of Wight Labour party, which has expressed considerable concern that the Bill might be objected to.

Mr. Cryer: Outside bodies, including the Labour party and other political parties, are quite entitled to make comments about this Bill. My guess is that the Isle of Wight Labour party would welcome legislation on a much wider basis to cover a great many local authorities. The Isle of Wight Labour party would certainly welcome the introduction and development of procedural means recommended by the Procedure Committee, which would avoid local authorities having to seek this sort of legislation in such an expensive way. If Conservative Members will support the Opposition's view that we should not deal with the amendments, and thus not deal with the Bill tonight, the Isle of Wight Labour party and other organisations would welcome that, provided that it was recognised that it is a message to the Government that a legislative programme is needed but that it should apply much more widely. That is a reasonable condition.

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) stated that the Isle of Wight Labour party supports the measure. I do not know whether that is true. However, one thing is certain, and that is that, whenever we have considered a private Member's Bill in the past, Labour parties in different parts of the country have written to us. I remember, for example, the Eastbourne Harbour Bill which dealt with the marina. The Eastbourne Labour party wrote to us about the measure. I am not sure that what the hon. Member for Isle of Wight said is up to date.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) should not spend too much time whittling his head about that. Unless the Isle of Wight Labour party——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I agree with the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). We should not spend our time whittling about what Labour parties outside this place think about the consideration of Lords amendments to private Bills. That is not the issue that we are considering this evening. Let us return to the Question that is before the House.

Mr. Skinner: I was about to say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that as Members of this place we have to scrutinise private Bills. If there is something wrong with Bills of this sort, as the Leader of the House said today, it is important that we should draw the attention of all hon. Members to the defect. If there is to be reform of private Bill procedure, that can he effected only by close scrutiny of the sort we are bringing to bear on the Isle of Wight Bill. If we engage in that scrutiny, we are likely to draw attention to the need for change much quicker.

Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Of course, he is right.

Mr. Terry Davis: I do not agree with some of my hon. Friend's remarks, for reasons that I shall seek to explain later if I am successful in catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend is right, however, to bring to the attention of the House the fact that a record is not available to us of the arguments that were advanced in favour of the amendments. I ask my hon. Friend to confirm what I understood him to say, that there is no record of the reasons for the amendments that are sought to be made to the Bill by another place. There is television in another place; is he saying that the amendments were tabled and agreed to in camera?

Mr. Cryer: I must congratulate my hon. Friend on his neat turn of phrase. The question that he has raised illustrates the problem. The main debating Chamber of the other place has predated this Chamber by more than 12 months in having its proceedings televised, but they have antique procedures, which are not open to the public, for dealing with Unopposed Private Bill Committees. I agree with the hon. Member for Isle of Wight that there was a Second Reading on 29 June, but Members of this place should not be required to go to listen to the proceedings of a Committee in another place. We have tasks to perform in this place. It should not be necessary for us to grovel to a non-elected Chamber to obtain information. That Chamber should provide information. Why not? If it provided information, we probably would not be having this debate. If the information were before us, we might be satisfied with the reasons for submitting the amendments. We could have prepared ourselves by reading that information to ascertain whether the validity of the amendments could be justified.

Mr. Kevin Barron: The case has been made for examining the private Bill procedure and making some major alterations to it. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) referred to the Isle of Wight Labour party. The Opposition have never regarded the private Bill procedure as one that should include party political involvement, or one that should be usurped by it. I suspect

that some of the private Bills proceeding through the House are regarded by the Government as political Bills, and have been supported on that basis.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is right. Those on the Government Benches have a somewhat shabby record in this instance. I recall the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill and the champagne party that was laid on. I am not suggesting for a moment that that approach has been adopted to the amendments that we are being asked to consider this evening. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight has referred to the comments of a political party, and there is no doubt that the passage of some private Bills has seen the Government working vigorously to promote them. They have whipped them through this place.
It is a strange irony that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight should mention the Labour party, which has been trying its best to treat private Bills in the way in which the House should deal with them instead of using them as a form of Government legislation and, therefore, promoting them. There is no allocation of responsibility to you in this matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You carry out your job properly and thoroughly. Inevitably, the Government have a great deal of power in this place and, to a considerable extent, they determine the amount of legislation, and they can choose to include the private Bill procedure.
Our argument is that these amendments might be better deferred so that we can study the private Bill procedure. We are near the end of this Session. According to the business statement earlier today, we finish on Thursday morning and start a new Session the following Tuesday. A new Minister is sitting on the Treasury Bench, and between votes he has been practising standing at the Dispatch Box. He could make a statement accepting deferment and offering to introduce a new Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill in the next Session. We do not ask for a guarantee, only that he agrees to consider doing that. That would be helpful to the House. As he has been here for so long, with his gleaming eye on the Dispatch Box, wanting desperately to stand there and utter a few words, it would be handy if he were given that opportunity. We want to encourage him to make a statement. He should have courage and be determined and start laying down policy early in his career. It might bring it to a tumbling end, but at least he could have a few memorable moments and a little press tomorrow.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The big advantage of the Minister introducing local government legislation to cover this matter is that we would then have it for the whole country, rather than having many local authorities wanting to promote private Bills. It would take a great deal of time in the House, but each local authority that is granted powers to regulate these events puts pressure on neighbouring local authorities that do not have those powers. That is unfair.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is right, and there is great merit in what he has said. That is why I ask that we think carefully about whether we should consider the Lords amendments.
The House of Lords is a revising Chamber. Frankly, some of us think that a Committee of this House could do all the work that it does much better and more effectively, and this debate is an example in point. What revising


Committee in this House would not have a record of the debates and discussions before producing amendments to a Bill? The argument has always been that the place down the Corridor is somewhere that the Government can introduce routine technical amendments to public Bills and where private Bills can be dealt with in either opposed or unopposed private Bill Committees, with minor and relatively unimportant amendments being made. Yet now, what is in effect a revising committee is not providing us—the basic, important and superior legislature—with proper and adequate information.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend is right to say that the textbook idea of the House of Lords is of a revising committee. I wonder where the decisions were taken. As my hon. Friend is the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, can he say whether there is any specific rule about where such hole-in-the-corner decisions are made? Is it in the House of Lords? If not, where do the discussions take place? We should know. Something to remember on private Bills is that if we talk about the issues we might learn a little about how the process is developed. I am not sure about where the discussions took place.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is right. It has been suggested that those who are interested in discovering the background to the amendments should have asked the appropriate Clerk in the other place for the date on which the Committee sat and then searched out the Room.
However, the position of Members of the House of Commons attending a Committee in the other place is not clear. I can well remember attending a Joint Committee of the two Houses on defence matters at which Caspar Weinberger was present. Because I had criticised him mildly, warmonger that he was and is, their Lordships threatened to throw me out—those pinstriped hooligans in the other place. If we had gone to the other place to investigate the background which the other place will not provide——

Mr. Skinner: Bovver boys in ermine.

Mr. Cryer: That is right.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is a standing convention of the House that we do not engage in criticism of the other place. It is not for the House to decide on or to discuss the procedures of their Lordships' House. They reach decisions by their own means. It is for us to bring our judgment to bear on the validity or acceptability of those decisions, and that is what we are about this evening.

Mr. Cryer: That is right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, we are discussing the absence of any explanation from the other place. I was saying that my journey into a joint Committee in the other place finished up with quite an argument. It would be unfortunate if such a position developed while following a routine procedure to obtain information. That might inhibit hon. Members from obtaining information. The solution would be for the other place to provide their reasons for the amendments in the first place.
It is patently absurd that the Committee's proceedings were not reported verbatim. If Hansard has difficulty keeping abreast of all the legislation in the House—if Hansard is flooded with work because of the huge volume

of legislation—the other place could have hired an outside body on a daily basis to provide a verbatim record. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments does that. That is a joint Committee with the other place and the record is provided for both Houses of Parliament.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Has my hon. Friend considered the amendments? There appear to be 17 amendments, but it is difficult to be sure. The previous Bill had 10 amendments and the start of each was underlined so that we could follow them. However, these amendments are not numbered or underlined——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions should be brief.

Mr. Barnes: If we handle the amendments as my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh) did, we shall be in a right pickle when it comes to following what it taking place.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend makes a good point. He has anticipated my next point.
The amendments are difficult to follow. They are not couched in the way that we would put them in the House of Commons. Commons amendments are difficult enough to follow: we have to work very hard to place them in the exact context of a Bill.
Moreover, the Lords amendments give the Isle of Wight council certain powers about which I should like to know more. The proposed new subsection (1B) states:
The Council may, in any case in which they think fit to do so, accept a notice given less than four months before the holding of the assembly as valid for the purpose of subsection (1) of this section".
I do not object to the council's being given extra powers; I am not one of those who seek to take powers from local authorities, as the Tories have. It would be interesting and useful, however, to know the reasons for such a wordy and complicated amendment.

Mr. Barnes: That illustrates the point that I was making. I find it difficult to discover in these pages the "section" just referred to. Is there any system whereby we can learn what hon. Members are talking about? Many hon. Members, after all, may wish to debate it.

Mr. Cryer: I implied that in my comments: I quoted from a new subsection which it is difficult to place in the context of the Bill. But I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has an illuminating point to make.

Mr. Skinner: I have just been to see the Clerk of the House, who has been very helpful. I thought that the amendments were a jumbled-up mess, and my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) have rightly pointed out that we cannot be too sure exactly where they begin and end. Although it is difficult to distinguish one from another, however, the Clerk has said that there are not 17 but 19. We may have to go through them stage by stage and one by one, as they are all different in character and they all confer different powers. The Clerk, however, is going to help us, and, of course, he will help Mr. Deputy Speaker as well; so I think that we shall be able to sort out the amendments as we reach them—if we reach them.

Mr. Cryer: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. That, I think, shows the nature of the difficulty. If we had had a verbatim record, the amendments would have appeared at the end of the discussion. It would have been helpful to know whether there had been a vote on some of them, although we do not have to know; a vote would have indicated controversy. Even if there had been unanimous agreement on all of them, however, at least what had been agreed would be spelt out in the record. Instead, we have two and a half pages of what appears to be an unclassified, uncategorised and unclear jumble.

Mr. Terry Davis: Running through my hon. Friend's speech has been an undercurrent—I put it no higher than that—of criticism of the other place for its failure to provide a record of the reasons, or arguments, for the amendments. Surely, however, a greater responsibility to provide a record lies with the Bill's promoters.

Mr. Cryer: That is an important point. I think that it would probably involve a change in procedure: the promoters would have to pay for the verbatim record. That brings us to the question of objectivity, to which I alluded earlier.

Mr. Davis: I am sorry, but my hon. Friend has missed the point. I was not suggesting that the Bill's promoters should pay for a verbatim record of the arguments in the other place; I was suggesting that they might provide us with the arguments, which need not involve a verbatim record. It need only be a summary of the reasons why they consider that the amendments are justified, and would improve the Bill.

Mr. Cryer: I have not missed the point. I was about to suggest that if we rely on the promoters' explanation of such an intricate part of the legislation—as opposed to a verbatim record—the problem is that the promoters have a vested interest. They are paid to promote the Bill. If they gain a reputation for getting a Bill through exceptionally smoothly, they will gain more business. It could thus be argued that any explanation might not present an objective, impartial picture. On the contrary, it might present a highly partial and unbalanced picture, so the House would still not have an adequate explanation.

Mr. Davis: I am impressed by the speed with which my hon. Friend has advanced that argument, but there is another alternative. Perhaps we could agree on a compromise with the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Field). If he were to give his reasons, we might be able to accept his objectivity.

Mr. Cryer: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. All that we have had so far from the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) are a few points in which he has tried to score off me and a few other hon. Members who are exercising their perfectly proper right, under the careful scrutiny of the Chairman of Ways and Means and Mr. Deputy Speaker. He did not say, "The hon. Member has raised some points. I have a great deal of information and I wish to answer them." I very much regret that that has not happened.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Is my hon. Friend making the point that promoters advise and legislators decide?

Mr. Cryer: That seems to me to be an excellent aphorism, on which I cannot improve. That is something

that we must bear in mind whenever we consider legislation. If legislation leaves this place with defects and faults, they stand.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend should give way to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Field).

Mr. Cryer: I shall certainly give way to him in a moment, because I referred to him.
One of the problems is that there is a literal interpretation of legislation. The courts are not allowed to take into account the mind of the legislator. However much we might elaborate on it in this place, it is the words on paper—in this case, the amendments—that we shall provide for the Isle of Wight, so we must be careful to ensure that those words are as tightly drafted as possible and can be amply justified in this Chamber before they receive Royal Assent.

Mr. Barry Field: I listened with particular care to what the hon. Member said about the Liberals' judgment. He may agree with me that, since we are considering a Bill that was promoted by the only county council in the country that is controlled by the Liberal Democrats, it is extraordinary that not a single member of that party is here to help the Bill on its way, despite the fact that the Bill enjoys all-party support on the Isle of Wight.

Mr. Cryer: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely valid point. My comments about elucidating the reasons for the amendments and whether we should consider them should be heard by somebody who supports the political complexion of the council. I am shocked that no Liberal, or Social Democrat—by whatever conundrum of complexity they call themselves—is here to make what might have been a very helpful contribution.
Consideration of the amendments should be deferred. The debate has been extremely useful so far, but I shall give way now to several of my hon. Friends who want to make a contribution to the debate and develop an argument which, for the first time that I can recall under the private Bill procedure, has revealed serious defects. That is not a criticism of the House of Lords. I would shut it down tomorrow, if I could, but that is a separate issue and I do not intend to pursue it.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend cannot do that. My hon. Friend can criticise the other place but not individual members of the House of Lords.

Mr. Cryer: Exposure of those serious defects suggests that' there is a need for drastic reform to ensure that such a slipshod attitude is not revealed again. Hon. Members are elected and accountable.

Mr. Skinner: That is the difference.

Mr. Cryer: This is the senior body. They are only the revisers. They are put there by patronage and birth—the worst possible basis for selection. As of right, therefore, we are able to demand a proper approach.

Mr. Skinner: When the hon. Member for Isle of Wight got up, I took it for granted that he would explain one or two things, as he represents the area. I know that he is not a Liberal or a member of the SDP, but I think that he is in favour of the Bill. It is most unhelpful not to have an explanation. In the earlier debate on NatWest, various hon. Members spoke and the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), who is helping the promoters of that Bill,


sat there for about one hour and then suddenly popped up and tried to explain it. We managed to glean something from what he said. It would be helpful if someone from the Isle of Wight, or the Government, would explain the Bill. We managed to get some valuable information in the earlier debate, although it came a bit too late, which is why we had to vote at the end of it.

Mr. Cryer: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. He confirms my view. This debate has been of great use as it has brought to the attention of hon. Members the difficulties with private Bills.
You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have had a difficult task sorting out and sifting through so many private Bills. It is regrettable that they are the result of the Government encouraging outside organisations to take this route, which was developed for the construction of railways in the 19th century. It is unsatisfactory to use the private Bill procedure for what is basically public legislation. This has been a useful debate, and we should scrutinise the Lords amendments carefully before accepting them.

Mr. Terry Davis: I disagree with the main thrust of the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), although I share his concern about the lack of reasons for the Lords amendments. I do not go all the way with his criticism of private Bills, especially those produced by democratically elected county councils as a means of experimenting, or providing opportunities to experiment.
My hon. Friend is suggesting that we should have a comprehensive, compendium, miscellaneous provisions Bill for local government once a year. I do not think that that is a good idea, as I shall try to explain when we discuss the carry-over motion for the Birmingham City Council (No. 2) Bill. I think that there is a place for initiative and municipal enterprise and for private Bills to deal with particular local problems.
I disagree most strongly with my hon. Friend's suggestion that the Government are in cahoots with the Isle of Wight county council and others to introduce private Bills to achieve ends which the Government do not have time to introduce public Bills to achieve. That is not the experience of Birmingham Members of Parliament.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill deals with large assemblies and how people can organise them? Does he agree that, if the rules about organising large gatherings differ in various parts of the country, it is extremely difficult for the promoters to know what hurdles they have to clear in each local authority area? Surely it is better to have the same rules throughout the country.

Mr. Davis: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Before we go any further, I should remind the House that we are discussing not the merits of the Bill, which was given an unopposed Second Reading, but whether we should consider some narrow drafting amendments made by the other place. The merits of the Bill have been decided, without opposition.

Mr. Davis: You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have anticipated my second point. You allowed my hon. Friend the

Member for Bradford, South to well at some length on his opposition to private Bills as a way of experimenting and dealing with local problems. I do not completely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett).

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend says that he is against further consideration of the Bill and against the alternatives suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). My hon. Friend is saying that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South is not right, and he threw out the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). My hon. Friend has a duty to explain his alternatives to the House. Even the Leader of the House has agreed that the private Bill procedure must be changed.

12 midnight

Mr. Davis: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr.Skinner)——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) will resist the temptation to respond to that intervention. We are discussing not the procedure for private Bills but whether we should give further consideration to the Lords amendments.

Mr. Davis: I should dearly love to explain why I disagree with my hon. Friends the Members for Denton and Reddish and for Bradford, South. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover that I have a duty to explain my disagreement, but I fear that I shall have to do so not in the Chamber but in the Lobby. I should much prefer to discuss our disagreements in public, but I accept your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, not to answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South. It is a little unfair that he was allowed to put his point at such length, yet other Labour Members are not allowed to disagree with him.
Like the hon. member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field), I agree with the Bill, but that is not what we are debating. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South was unfair and unreasonable in suggesting that we are discussing the principle of the Bill. That is long gone; we are discussing the detailed Lords amendments. I should like to have heard an explanation of the amendments. Some of my hon. Friends may vote against the amendments, but they will not be voting against the Bill, and that must be said very firmly.

Mr. Skinner: The Clerk told me that there are 19 Lords amendments. It is pretty clear that those amendments are substantial, and they cover almost every aspect of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South was bound to talk in general terms about the amendments because they cover such wide territory—they almost rewrite the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill has a duty to explain, even in general terms, why he opposes further consideration of the Bill.

Mr. Davis: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South that we should allow time to consider the amendments. We must consider them carefully because we


have not the advantage of a record in the other place or an explanation from the promoters of the Bill or from the hon. Member for Isle of Wight.
Like myself, my hon. Friends will have received letters from some Labour Members who support the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill and from some who oppose it. Quite properly, they have set out in letters the reasons for their opposition. When we debate that Bill next week, we shall be able to consider their arguments. I wish that we had had the advantage of a simple explanation of each of these 19 Lords amendments. I am quite happy for such an explanation to be given by the Isle of Wight county council or by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight who, as he said, is not a member of the controlling party on the Isle of Wight. It would have saved much time if we had had an explanation in writing beforehand, as I think all my hon. Friends agree.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I support the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and argue that it would be better not to consider the Lords amendments at this stage. Conservative Members may well argue why I should support the amendments. Members of the Isle of Wight Labour party wrote to me and spoke to me on the telephone, strongly putting forward their reasons why the legislation should be enacted. They were worried about the problems of controlling large assemblies in open spaces. I pointed out that we have a duty not only to consider their problems and but to safeguard the civil rights of individuals. I pointed out that many of us are concerned about the private Bill procedure, which we hope will be reformed quickly. I pointed out that, by dealing with local authorities piecemeal, the problem was simply moved from one place to another, and that if something was appropriate for the Isle of Wight, no doubt it would be appropriate for other places.

Mr. John Fraser: That is not entirely true. There are matters that are germane to London that are not germane to other parts of the country. Some local autonomy and democracy is not outrageous, especially if it is supported by the Labour party.

Mr. Bennett: I accept that there are differences between different parts of the country. However, the problem of controlling large assemblies in open spaces occurs not only on the Isle of Wight but in a substantial number of places in the south-east of England and elsewhere.
The other side of the argument is the right of individuals to assemble in large groups to demonstrate and protest. Getting the balance right is a difficult civil rights issue. On the whole, it is better to have national provision than major local variations.

Mr. Skinner: It is interesting that my hon. Friend is going down the track of saying that local authorities generally should have such powers in Bills of this kind. Only yesterday at Question Time, the Secretary of State for the Environment said that he would introduce legislation or assist local authorities to control these assemblies at acid house parties. If the Government dealt with that general aspect, the whole country would be covered through the work of environmental health officers.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) has a point. He is a lawyer and studies these matters carefully. It looks as though the Government are going down that track.

Mr. Bennett: I understand that point. The flavour of the month is perhaps the acid house party. The legislation deals with the difficulties caused by pop festivals and similar events. I understand the difficulties faced by a person who finds that a pop festival is being organised close to his home, but we must achieve a balance between the right of the individual to take part in lawful activities and the right of people to live peacefully in their homes. it is difficult to achieve that balance.
I should like to consider our difficulties during the Bill's passage. It is impossible to make sense of the Bill without reading the earlier legislation. When it was to be considered by the other place, the sponsors helpfully included the schedule which referred to section 5 of the Isle of Wight County Council Act 1971, as amended by the Bill. Page 3 of the Bill said what the legislation was doing, which I am sure was very helpful. Unfortunately, the 19 amendments, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) referred, virtually change the original legislation. The problem now is that when we read the schedule, it is extremely difficult to work out whether it is the chief constable or other people who have to give the authority. It would have been reasonable for the promoters to ensure that, when the amendments came to this House, section 5 of the original legislation as amended by this Bill was reprinted in the schedule so that we could now read the balance of the legislation.
In addition, either the promoters should have given us a statement, or the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field), who I presume is sponsoring the Bill, should have explained to us that the original Bill did not cover various points, so the changes were required to improve the balance. However, our difficulty is that we cannot read about the proceedings in the House of Lords, so we do not know what arguments were advanced there, and so far, no hon. Member has told us what the advantages of the changes are.

Mr. Skinner: I want to help my hon. Friend. I have been sitting on the Bench where the party that dare not speak its name usually sits. That party controls the Isle of Wight, so I should have thought that one of its representatives would have been able to explain the amendments.
What my hon. Friend has said is alarming. I told my hon. Friend earlier that the 19 amendments, which cover several pages, might rewrite the Bill. My hon. Friend, who has scrutinised the Bill carefully—as he does all such Bills, as you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker—is saying exactly that. As the Liberals, who have some control of the Isle of Wight, are not explaining the amendments, the Government are not helping and the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) is not doing anything, it is incumbent on my hon. Friend to explain fully why he opposes further consideration of the amendments, which seem to rewrite the Bill. No one else will explain the Bill; I believe that my hon. Friend could.

Mr. Bennett: I was hoping, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you might advise me not to go down that path——

Mr. Skinner: It is germane.

Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend tempts me a great deal, but I must make it clear that I am not a lawyer, so I find it extremely difficult to put the amendments into the existing schedule to find out precisely what is being suggested. However, I had the impression that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight was hoping to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. He could carry out that task for us and I should listen to his explanation with great interest.
I am concerned about this matter. I know that you have already said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you do not want us to go into the whole question of the way in which private Bills proceed. However, if we are looking to the reform of the private Bill procedure, I hope that it will be suggested to promoters, first, that it would be better if the Bill were in the right form when it began its progress through the House, and secondly, that, if charges were to be made as a result of advice from the Home Office and the Government, they were made in Committee in the House of Commons, and not at a late stage in the House of Lords and then slipped back here without clear guidance about their intention.

Mr. Barry Field: I am obliged to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), because I have sat here for almost five hours listening to the arguments on the International Westminster Bank Bill and this Bill. The hon. Gentleman has come close to making two points with which I agree. The first is that the private Bill procedure of this House is clearly in considerable need of overhaul and modernisation: I align myself with his comments. The second is that he informed the House that he had received a letter from the Isle of Wight Labour party. I am obliged to him for that remark, because the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) rather gave the impression that, when I make a statement in the House, its veracity might be called into question.
As the hon. Member for Bolsover pointed out, no member of the Liberal party is present tonight, despite the fact that the Isle of Wight is the only county council that the Liberal party controls. It is remarkable that the Liberals are not here tonight to lend their weight and support to what is essentially a county council Bill.
The House passed the original Isle of Wight County Council Act in 1971. As the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) said, the original Act is intended to control open-air events such as pop festivals. It could be said that the Isle of Wight had one of the first acid house parties in the early 1960s. We have sought our own private Act because of our difficulties in controlling such large-scale open-air events. We wanted to ensure that those events were properly regulated, with proper hygiene arrangements on site and proper controls. As a result of an amendment to the Act, a prosecution was brought last year, but it was found in the magistrates to be defective.
The Lords amendments to this Bill are entirely drafting amendments. They were intended to bring the Bill into line and hopefully ensure that, when it is enacted, it will be possible to prosecute those who do not comply with the Act's requirements.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Field: I will give way when I have finished my point.
Since I was elected, I have witnessed many bizarre occasions. However, if someone had told me that I would stand here tonight and witness the Labour party supporting the actions of the National Front, I would have been staggered. The failed prosecution to which I have referred, came about as a result of events at the last scooter rally held by the National Front on the Isle of Wight. It is remarkable that the Labour party should support the National Front tonight.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the problem with defending civil liberties is that sometimes we have to defend them for people whom we find totally objectionable? It is very difficult to confer civil rights on people we detest. Will the hon. Gentleman explain how the 1971 Act got into a mess in the first place? The original Act passed through the private Bill procedure, but because that scrutiny was unsatisfactory, the prosecution to which the hon. Gentleman referred collapsed in the magistrates court. Would it not be better to have Government legislation on the issue, as that would be much more likely to stand up in a magistrates court?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that the question before us is that the Lords amendments be now considered. We are discussing drafting amendments to a Bill that was given an unopposed Second Reading. It is not appropriate this evening to discuss the merits of the Bill. They have already been decided.

Mr. Field: Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your very helpful comments.
We are discussing the Lords amendments, which are intended to guard the civil liberties of the people of the Isle of Wight against the actions of the National Front. It is extraordinary that the Labour party should be seeking to support the National Front tonight.

Mr. Martin Redmond: I have sat here for several hours. I also listened to the proceedings on the Isle of Wight Bill in Committee Upstairs. We listened to the arguments, and at no time did anyone mention that the Bill was intended to stop National Front gatherings on the Isle of Wight. If the Bill is intended to specifically stop the National Front, the Bill should say so. It does not. Tonight is the first time that I have heard it said that National Front members are the only people who organise large-scale gatherings on the Isle of Wight.
It is true that the Bill received an unopposed Second Reading. Tonight, however, I had expected the hon. Member for Isle of Wight to tell us why we should consider the amendments. There is no doubt that the amendments leave a lot to be desired.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not want to inhibit the hon. Gentleman from discussing the amendments, but I wonder whether this is the appropriate time to do so. We are discussing whether the Lords amendments should be considered. When we have resolved that matter, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) and other hon. Members can discuss the substance or the merit of the amendments.

Mr. Redmond: I accept your guidance at all times in such matters—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down, then."] I


certainly shall not sit down, until I have made the points I want to make. Perhaps you should inform one or two hon. Members, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that, if they are unwell, they should go home.
In Committee, one listens to the barristers and to the petitioners as they make their points about the Bill. One also has the opportunity to ask questions, but, unfortunately, once one has spoken, one is not allowed a second chance to do so. Unfortunately, I was unable to ask the questions I wanted answered because the hon. Member for Isle of Wight did not get off his backside to tell us why the amendments had been made. As soon as he had spoken, however, someone moved the closure. If we are to consider amendments properly, they should be referred back to the Committee that originally considered them.

Mr. Roger Gale: Will the hon. Gentleman be able to give exactly the same attention to all the Lords amendments to the South Yorkshire Light Rail Transit Bill when we come to discuss it?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: One Bill at a time. We can worry about that Bill when we come to it.

Mr. Redmond: I will not respond to threats. I consider that I am well paid to spend my time here, but many hon. Members might sooner be home in bed—I do not know whose.

Mr. Harry Barnes: The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) claimed that it was strange that we were opposing the Bill, given that it had the support of the Isle of Wight Labour party and the political connotations attached to it. No Opposition Member has spoken against the Bill. We are discussing whether the amendments should be considered and procedural matters. We are also discussing whether it is right to go ahead with the Bill in its present form without being given an explanation for its present state.

Mr. Redmond: My hon. Friend makes that point admirably.
I went along to the Vote Office to collect the private Bill and the amendments to it. Unfortunately, I was unable to obtain them, and you will recollect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I raised a point of order about Lords amendments being unavailable. I went back to the Vote Office and managed to obtain a copy of the amendments that someone had managed to find somewhere. Originally, I asked to be given all the Lords amendments, so that I could consider them properly to ensure that they were technical, substantive and worthy of discussion. Fifteen minutes ago, we went back and managed to get hold of the Lords amendments to the Isle of Wight Bill.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend has little alternative but to look at the 19 different amendments and go through them. We can try to help one another by starting at the beginning and seeing which ones are important, which are less important and which should be opposed. Perhaps they should all he opposed—who knows? In the absence of any, or very little, consideration being given to the matter by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) and the fact that the Liberals who control the council are not here to provide us with information, there is only one alternative left. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davies) touched on it: we must go through the amendments.
We do not have a verbatim report from the House of Lords so we shall have to start the process. There are about three pages, and we should quietly go through the amendments——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The rule of the House in these matters is that Members speak only once unless they have the unanimous consent of the House. Repeated interventions that are of the duration of speeches transgress that rule. The other convention of the House is that interventions should be brief.

Mr. Redmond: It is quite obvious that we cannot possibly give the amendments due consideration unless we have time to do so. It may be that they are all acceptable, but they may not be. Unless one is a lawyer—I am not, thank God—one needs more time to consider exactly what a particular amendment means. The Bill may have been there an hour or so later, but it certainly was not there this morning when I went to pick up all the Bills. Therefore, I could not spend a day or so giving due consideration to what, if anything, I should say.
It appears that Conservative Members are not interested in passing good legislation. I do not know what would happen if a bad private Bill left this House. Who would rectify it if it proved to be a bad piece of legislation? Would the Secretary of State for the Environment go charging into the courts to secure an amendment? I am not quite sure. Therefore, it is important to give due consideration to the Lords amendments to the Isle of Wight Bill to see whether we should debate them.
When we give them due consideration, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) might say what the amendments would do.

Mr. Cryer: rose——

Mr. Redmond: Let me make this point. It would certainly be helpful to me to be able to say that an amendment was correct.
It is untrue to say, as the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight did, that I support the National Front. Perhaps some Conservative Members have closer links with the National Front than I do, because I do not support it.

Mr. Hind: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that, if we analyse the arguments of him and his hon. Friends this evening about the Isle of Wight Bill, the availability of the Lords' debates material, the unsatisfactory nature of those debates, the failure of schedules of details on the amendments, the fact that we should debate this in the context of a miscellaneous provisions Bill, they can be seen to be equally valid for every other Bill on the Order Paper? Those Bills include one in which I am sure the hon. Gentleman has an interest: the South Yorkshire Light Rail Transit Bill. Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander? What he is arguing could equally be said of a Bill that he supports.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us stick to whether we should or should not consider the Lords amendments.

Mr. Redmond: I accept your guidance, Sir. I hope that hon. Members will confine their remarks to these Lords amendments, and not hint at what might happen to future private Bills on the agenda.
I agree that we need a different system, but we need one that is accountable. Many Bills going through the House should be considered by local councillors. In this case, the Lords have submitted amendments, and we cannot challenge the reasons for them. We cannot ask the Clerks to explain what the promoters or the parliamentary agents may or may not want. Parliamentary agents may have ulterior reasons for their suggestions. If we had been able to discuss them in a proper Committee, we might not have had to spend the night deciding whether to consider the Lords amendments. I will not allow the matter to pass without comment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh) said that he was suspicious by nature. I am not—I like to trust people—but over the past two years my trust has been misplaced and taken advantage of. I come from Yorkshire, and I am a little naive about how the City sharks operate——

Mr. Barry Field: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 131, Noes 21.

Division No. 400]
[12.32 am


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Gale, Roger


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Amess, David
Gill, Christopher


Amos, Alan
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Arbuthnot, James
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Baldry, Tony
Gregory, Conal


Bendall, Vivian
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Benyon, W.
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Ground, Patrick


Boswell, Tim
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Bottomley, Peter
Hague, William


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hanley, Jeremy


Bowis, John
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Harris, David


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hayward, Robert


Brazier, Julian
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Bright, Graham
Hind, Kenneth


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Holt, Richard


Browne, John (Winchester)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Buck, Sir Antony
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Burns, Simon
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Burt, Alistair
Irvine, Michael


Butterfill, John
Jack, Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Jackson, Robert


Carrington, Matthew
Janman, Tim


Chapman, Sydney
Kilfedder, James


Chope, Christopher
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Knapman, Roger


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Lawrence, Ivan


Couchman, James
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Devlin, Tim
Lightbown, David


Dorrell, Stephen
Lilley, Peter


Durant, Tony
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Eggar, Tim
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Emery, Sir Peter
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Fallon, Michael
Maclean, David


Favell, Tony
McLoughlin, Patrick


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Mans, Keith


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Mellor, David


Freeman, Roger
Miller, Sir Hal


French, Douglas
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)





Mitchell, Sir David
Stern, Michael


Moate, Roger
Stevens, Lewis


Moss, Malcolm
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Neubert, Michael
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Sumberg, David


Paice, James
Summerson, Hugo


Patnick, Irvine
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Thorne, Neil


Portillo, Michael
Viggers, Peter


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Redwood, John
Wallace, James


Renton, Tim
Wheeler, John


Rowe, Andrew
Widdecombe, Ann


Ryder, Richard
Wolfson, Mark


Sackville, Hon Tom
Wood, Timothy


Shaw, David (Dover)



Shepherd, Colin (Heretord)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sims, Roger
Mr. Michael Colvin and


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Mr, Jacques Arnold.


Stanbrook, Ivor





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Meale, Alan


Barron, Kevin
Morgan, Rhodri


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Nellist, Dave


Boyes, Roland
Prescott, John


Cryer, Bob
Redmond, Martin


Cummings, John
Ruddock, Joan


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Skinner, Dennis


Dixon, Don
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Foster, Derek



Haynes, Frank
Tellers for the Noes:


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Mr. Michael Welsh and


McFall, John
Mr. Harry Barnes.


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put, accordingly, That the Lords amendments be now considered:—

The House proceeded to a Division;

Mr. Barry Field: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the disparity of previous votes, would you allow us to rise in our places to take the vote?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): No.

The House having divided: Ayes 122, Noes 15.

Division No. 401]
[12.44 am


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Amess, David
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Amos, Alan
Couchman, James


Arbuthnot, James
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Devlin, Tim


Bendall, Vivian
Dorrell, Stephen


Bevan, David Gilroy
Durant, Tony


Boswell, Tim
Eggar, Tim


Bottomley, Peter
Emery, Sir Peter


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Fallon, Michael


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Favell, Tony


Bowis, John
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Fishburn, John Dudley


Brazier, Julian
Freeman, Roger


Bright, Graham
French, Douglas


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gale, Roger


Browne, John (Winchester)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Gill, Christopher


Buck, Sir Antony
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Burns, Simon
Goodlad, Alastair


Butterfill, John
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Carrington, Matthew
Gregory, Conal


Chapman, Sydney
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')






Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mitchell, Sir David


Ground, Patrick
Moate, Roger


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Moss, Malcolm


Hague, William
Neubert, Michael


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hanley, Jeremy
Paice, James


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Patnick, Irvine


Harris David
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hayward, Robert
Porter, David (Waveney)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Portillo, Michael


Hind, Kenneth
Redwood, John


Holt, Richard
Renton, Tim


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Rowe, Andrew


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Ryder, Richard


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Shepherd, Colin (Heretord)


Irvine, Michael
Sims, Roger


Jack, Michael
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Jackson, Robert
Stanbrook, Ivor


Janman, Tim
Stern, Michael


Kilfedder, James
Stevens, Lewis


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Knapman, Roger
Sumberg, David


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Summerson, Hugo


Lawrence, Ivan
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Thorne, Neil


Lightbown, David
Viggers, Peter


Lilley, Peter
Wallace, James


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Wheeler, John


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Widdecombe, Ann


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Wolfson, Mark


Maclean, David
Wood, Timothy


McLoughlin, Patrick



Mans, Keith
Tellers for the Ayes:


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Mr. Michael Colvin and


Miller, Sir Hal
Mr. Jacques Arnold.


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)





NOES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Nellist, Dave


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Prescott, John


Boyes, Roland
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Cryer, Bob
Skinner, Dennis


Dixon, Don
Welsh Michael (Doncaster N)


Haynes, Frank



Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Tellers for the Noes:


McFall, John
Mr. Martin Redmond and


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Mr. John Cummings.


Meale, Alan

Question accordingly agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed,That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendments.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could you tell us how you intend to deal with this? Is there to be a debate on the first amendment, followed by our proceeding to a vote if we wish; or do you intend us to debate several amendments together, followed by votes on each?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): It would be more convenient for the House and in accordance with our normal custom if we had a general debate on all the Lords amendments. We could consider later how to reach a decision on the amendments.

Mr. Bennett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When I look at the amendments I have difficulty understanding whether all the amendments hang together and deal with one issue or whether they cover a wide range of issues. Can you give guidance on whether they all hang together? Unfortunately, I could not find a selection list in the Noes Lobby.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that it would be for the convenience of the House if we proceeded in the way that I have suggested rather than tried to split them up artificially.

1 am

Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have the list of 19 amendments and it is more than a little difficult to find out where one ends and the other begins. I discussed the matter with the Clerk who was in the Chamber earlier. He had a list, and I suppose that he left it for the next Clerk. He marked the precise amendments. The amendments are different in terms of the part of the Bill to which they relate, so we should discuss them separately. The first amendment reads:
In the Preamble, page 1, line 4, at end insert—
 (2) By the Isle of Wight Act 1980 it was provided that the said section 5 should continue to have effect notwithstanding the provisions of section 262 of the Local Government Act 1972:
The other amendments are completely different.
We managed to deal with two or three amendments at the same time when we considered the International Westminster Bank Bill. That was a comparatively minor Bill compared with this one, which covers a whole range of powers for the local authority. For the life of me, I do not see how we can have a general debate on the granting of powers relating to acid house parties, rallies and so on without hearing from the hon. Member for Isle of Wight. It is like considering together 15 schedules to a Government Bill. Each amendment should be considered separately.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is customary to debate the amendments together, and a number of them hang together. I am sure that with its usual ingenuity, the House will find no difficulty covering all the points that need to be covered. It would be better to debate the amendments that are now before us.

Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that it is difficult to decipher all these pages of amendments. My point of order is very practical. You will note that the first amendment says:
In the preamble, page 1, line 4, at end insert—
and then it says:
Section 5 should continue to have effect notwithstanding the provisions of section 262 of the Local Government Act 1972:
I know that this is not a Committee stage, but were it the Committee stage of a normal Bill, it would be incumbent on the responsible Department to provide for hon. Members who intended to take part in the debate an explanatory memorandum so that we could understand what other legislation is being referred to.
Can you explain to me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whose responsibility it is to provide us with sufficient copies—for the 150 or so hon. Members who obviously want to take part in the debate, or they would not be listening to me so patiently—of extracts from legislation such as section 262 of the Local Government Act 1972 as would enable us to see precisely how the Lords amendments affect existing legislation?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think it is quite clear that it is not for the Chair to explain what the hon. Gentleman


asks, but, if we get on with the debate, he might get answers to the questions that he is asking. We shall now continue with the debate on the Lords amendments.

Mr. Nellist: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not trying to be difficult. There are about 100 hon. Members in the Chamber, and I do not think that one has a copy of section 262 of the Local Government Act 1972. Those of us who want to take part in the debate want to know whose responsibility it is to supply copies of it. None is available in the Vote Office. I have been there, and the only thing I can get hold of is a copy of the Lords amendments. Whose responsibility is it to provide other bits of information so that we can get on with the debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a matter for hon. Members. If we get on with the debate, we may get answers to such questions.

Mr. Redmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had hoped that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) would have got up and explained the Lords amendments and how they affect the Bill that was discussed in Committee.
It emerged in Committee that the desire to control crowds and facilities for them was the main reason for the Bill. Since then, Conservative Members have said that that was not said. The Vote Office was unable to give me a copy of the Lords amendments until quite recently. If we had had copies this morning, when we asked for them, we could have examined the amendments and decided whether to support them. We have not had much time to consider the amendments, so I ask the hon. Member for Isle of Wight, once again, to give us the benefit of the knowledge that he should have gained as the Member of Parliament for the Isle of Wight.
The House should not pass any measure that would be detrimental to the people of the Isle of Wight. Hon. Members should consider the amendments more carefully.

Mr. Harry Barnes: My hon. Friend said that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) should explain the amendments. Some of the amendments appear to be technical and only alter words here and there. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight should take us through—I have had to number he amendments myself—amendments Nos. 10, 5 and 12, which make major changes.

Mr. Redmond: I accept what my hon. Friend says. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight had an opportunity briefly to explain the Bill on Second Reading. He failed to do so; it was moved formally and accepted. We cannot allow things to continue in that way.
I remember that the Local Government Act 1972 was huge. One needs it to hand to understand the implications of the first amendment. It is all very well for hon. Members to say that I should have checked it in the Library, but to have done so I would have needed the Lords amendments in my hand this morning. I have grave reservations about whether the amendments should be made because I am not sure of their implications. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight should explain the implication of the amendments.

Mr. Barnes: Section 262 of the Local Government Act 1972 is several pages long. The Bill amends provisions of the Isle of Wight County Council Act 1971. The Isle of

Wight Act 1980 waived the provisions in section 262 of the Local Government Act 1972. It is beyond me to understand which part of those Acts is changed by the amendment. I believe that it is beyond hon. Members, because no one has sorted it out.

Mr. Redmond: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for explaining that.
Everything is as clear as mud, and fully to understand the Bill one should have the relevant documents. Given the substantial changes that the amendments would make, the Bill should return to Committee.

Mr. John Butterfill: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to continue speaking after he has clearly fallen asleep?

Mr. Redmond: I am sure that, just before I fall asleep, hon. Members will hear me cough. When they hear that, they will think, "He is heading for noddy land." Interruptions tend to disrupt the flow of one's speech.
Does the hon. Member for Isle of Wight intend to explain? If he will do his job efficiently and thoroughly, I am willing to sit down to let him explain. However, I am convinced that there will be silence from him.

Mr. Michael Welsh: The first Lords amendment deals with a point only four lines into the Bill, which is nearly unbelievable. I cannot get to the bottom of the matter. The local authorities want the power to control large overnight assemblies in the open. Does that mean that if there is a boy scouts' jamboree, they can control it, but if there is an acid house party, they may have no desire to control it? I should be grateful if my hon. Friend could explain the meaning of the first Lords amendment, which applies so early in the Bill.

Mr. Redmond: In the debate on the International Westminster Bank Bill, my hon. Friend questioned the judgment of the people who had produced the legislation. I should love to be able to say that everything is crystal clear so that the House can make a decision. Unfortunately, I cannot do that. I was not with their Lordships when they produced these amendments. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight should intervene to allay our fears. In wanting to control large assemblies, do the local authorities want to control acid house parties, Nazi or National Front gatherings—to which reference was made earlier—or boy scouts' jamborees? The latter are also large organised gatherings, and many lads and girl guides enjoy them.
I am not a suspicious man, but what has transpired over the past few months has turned my trusting nature into one of suspicion. I now question everything. People can put over things quite nicely. We know that everyone wants to say, "We had a good day," and go home to bed and have a good night's kip.

Mr. Nellist: rose——

Mr. Richard Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I draw your attention to "Erskine May", which states:
The Speaker has also stated that it is the custom for Members to wear jackets and ties.


I have raised this matter several times with Mr. Speaker. He has ruled that he will not call Members who are not properly attired for the Chamber.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) is wearing a jacket and tie. Mr. Redmond.

Mr. Nellist: Can my hon. Friend assist ——

Mr. Jeremy Hanley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I clearly heard you call the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist). It is the third time in the past half hour that you have called him. We are in danger of a precedent being set as not only is he not wearing a jacket when you have called him, but he has his shirt sleeves rolled up. Will you please ask him to withdraw from the Chamber until he is properly dressed, or not call him again?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I know that Mr. Speaker has dealt with this matter on a number of occasions. He has requested normal dress in the Chamber, but he has never said that it is an absolute condition for an hon. Member being called. He has merely deprecated abnormal dress. I call Mr. Nellist.

Mr. Nellist: Can my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) assist me? I am having difficulty with the first amendment. My hon. Friend will see that on his Amendment Paper it says that the amendment seeks to insert at the end of line 4 on page 1:
By the Isle of Wight Act 1980 it was provided that the said section 5 should continue to have effect notwithstanding the provisions of section 262 of the Local Government Act 1972.
The Bill says:
By the Isle of Wight Act 1980 it was provided that the said section 5 should continue to have effect notwithstanding the provisions of section 262 of the Local Government Act 1972.
I have read those words four times in the past two minutes and, to me, they are indentical. I cannot understand why we are being asked to discuss an amendment that is worded exactly the same as a provision of the Bill when it emerged from Committee. Can my hon. Friend explain that, or will he ask other hon. Members to explain it? If not, it is a waste of time.

Mr. Redmond: I shall do my best, but I am quite willing to give way to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight if he wants to explain what the Isle of Wight Act 1980 says. A lawyer would understand. Like most legal documents, one would need to be a Philadelphia lawyer to understand the amendments. Many Members are in the legal profession and will no doubt jump up to clarify the position.
As I understand it, when a Bill is presented to the Clerks' Office, they have a natter and a discussion. If everything is in order, the Bill is clarified, the proper procedures and notifications take place and the Bill then goes into Committee where those who support or oppose it can discuss it. They can listen to a barrister or a Queen's counsel—I am not sure which but, by God, they can talk. The Bill is then presented. After that, the Bill comes to this House and, if it is not amended, it goes to the other place. It then arrives back here duly amended.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend accept that I may have misled the House earlier when I complained that the Bill that we received from the Vote Office needed to have these amendments incorporated?

The Bill should come from the Vote Office as it came out of Committee. Our problem is that we do not have the original Bill as it went into Committee. For my lion. Friend to see what has happened, we have to read the schedule, which sets out the provisions as amended. The difficulty is that we do not have before us the Bill in the form in which it went into Committee, which would have been helpful. However, it is not available at the Vote Office.

Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In all seriousness, will you consider having the Bill withdrawn from debate, by whatever technical means may be necessary? If the Vote Office cannot supply us with the necessary paper work for us to consider the Bill properly, it is an injustice to all concerned with the Bill for the debate to continue. Will you consider having the Bill withdrawn from debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not prepared to do that. If we get on with the debate, we may get the answers.

Mr Redmond: I am sure that the answers will not be forthcoming from the people who should give them. I am sorry, but——

Mr. Hind: The South Yorkshire Light Rail Transit Bill is not looking very good now.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have had threats from Conservative Members. They are saying that if they do not make progress on this Bill, they will take it out on another Bill. That is not the way for the House to proceed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Matters are complicated enough. Let us deal with one Bill at a time.

Mr. Redmond: The more threats that are made. the more stubborn I become—sticks and stones.
I was elected to this place to try to do the best for the people of Don Valley. Rightly or wrongly, I will try to do that. It may displease Conservative Members if I want to represent my constituents: that may be a little foreign to their natures. However, I will represent them to the best of my ability, whether or not that pleases Tory Members.

Mr. Richard Alexander: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that although he and I are here to represent our constituencies, we are not here to scupper whatever they want to do in the Isle of Wight? Can we not get on with the Isle of Wight business?

Mr. Redmond: I hope that we are not scuppering the Isle of Wight Bill. I hope that the residents of the Isle of Wight get their Bill. However, we hope that that Bill will be good and will be beneficial to the Isle of Wight arid to the people who live there so that they can enjoy the benefits of the Bill for centuries—unless another private Bill is introduced. I am not against the Bill. I just want to ensure that the people of the Isle of Wight, their children and their children's children can enjoy the benefits of a good Bill.
I am not sure whether the Lords amendments will meet that end. That is why I want clarification from the hon. Member for Isle of Wight. However, it appears that he is more in the dark than I am.

Mr. Michael Welsh: I thought that we were discussing amendments to the Isle of Wight Bill. That is quite simple. However, we are not. We are discussing a Bill that, has


been amended in Committee. We are not discussing Lords amendments to the Bill because no one has a copy of the Bill. We have only the amended version. The Bill is another piece of paper. Is this the procedure that we should follow? My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) is more knowledgeable than I on these issues and I hope that he can answer my points.

Mr. Redmond: Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North should sit in on these Committees and he would be able to say whether we should be discussing Lords amendments now. After the Bill has passed from the Private Bill Office and has been explained and discussed, my hon. Friend may understand what is happening. Unlike my hon. Friend, who is suspicious, I am trusting. Unfortunately, that trust has turned sour.
Whether hon. Members like it or not, I want to search for the information so that I can say whether an amendment is okay. It is different to reach such a decision because of the lack of information. Lawyers, and there are plenty of them in here, have stacks of books containing case history after case history to help them make decisions. If a private Bill is bad and we decide to kick it out, who rectifies that mistake? Is it left to the judicial procedure or is the approval of the House required to make the necessary amendments? The Bill and the Local Government Act 1972 are no mean documents, but reference is also made to other documents, and so it goes on.
1.30 am
If hon. Members want to intervene or make sedentary interventions I shall gladly give way, as I did a moment ago. I should be happy if they clarified the position about the amendments.
The amendment on page 2, line 6 talks about four months. I should have thought that it would have been in the interests of the Isle of Wight authorities to be flexible about the time scale. To organise an event properly may take two years, two months, two days, 24 hours or even an hour. The Government usually work to the shortest possible time scale when considering private Bills.
It is important that consideration is given to the Lords amendments. I will sit down happily if the hon. Member for Isle of Wight explains the amendments. I am not sure that he will do so. By my probing I hope to provoke some comment which will enlighten our proceedings. I shall not vote against the amendments if it is proved that they are good for the people of the Isle of Wight. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight has said that they are beneficial to those people, but he should get up and prove that. I will happily accept the Bill if people tell me what certain things mean, why it must be altered and why there is such a rush to get it through on the nod. I do not like to be criticised for trying to find out those answers.
I am opposed to acid house parties. That youngsters want to attend such parties is a terrible indictment of our nation. We should provide better means to keep those youngsters away from such parties. We are concerned, however, to ensure that we do not take steps to stop all large gatherings as that would would be an infringement of civil liberties.
We must consider the amendments carefully and I hope that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight will get up to explain them.

Mr. Barry Field: indicated assent.

Mr. Redmond: I shall sit down in good faith and in the hope that the hon. Gentleman will explain away my fears.

Mr. Field: The original Bill was passed by the House in 1971 as a result of between 80,000 and 100,000 young people attending a pop festival on the Isle of Wight. My predecessor Mark Woodnutt sought the support of the House in endeavouring to obtain legislation to regulate and control such a large gathering on the island. That was partially effective, and the pop festivals have subsequently been replaced by scooter rallies in which 5,000, 6,000 or 7,000 individuals arrive on the island for a bank holiday weekend. They congregate on one particular site—usually a rented field.
As I have already said, the Bill's purpose is to ensure that proper notice is given by the organisers of such an event, to ensure that sanitation, fire engines, police and St. John Ambulance are present to ensure that the young people enjoy themselves in an orderly and safe way. After amendments had been passed in the House, an event took place which 6,500 young people attended on their scooters. There is some evidence to lead us to believe that the organiser pocketed a considerable amount of money. The beer tent charged a high price for a can of lager. Various elements on the site—which the local police have said were definitely National Front supporters—stoned the fire engines, burned down the beer tent and generally ran riot.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) will know that the Isle of Wight has the highest percentage of any county council in the country of over 75-year-olds who live independently in their homes. They were clearly terrified. The behaviour of the individuals was appalling. A small caucus of the youngsters, not the majority, came from the National Front to disrupt what would otherwise have been a perfectly reasonable weekend for the other young people.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: rose——

Mr. Field: No, I shall not give way.
Unfortunately, when charges were brought against the organisers in the local magistrates courts, the magistrates had to conclude that they could not proceed with the charges because the original Act was defective. I hope that, tonight, the amendments will win the support of all hon. Members.
As the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) has already mentioned, the local Labour party on the Isle of Wight supports the Bill, as does the Social and Liberal Democrat party despite the fact that its members are absent tonight. That is an appalling indictment of the party when we consider that that is the only county council in the country which it controls.
I hope that we may yet obtain the support of Opposition Members for these reasonable amendments, so that next time a charlatan organises an event on the Isle of Wight, overcharges young people and does not abide by the proper regulations which ensure that such events are reasonably organised so that young people can enjoy themselves in a proper way and undesirables are kept out, we shall be able to bring a prosecution. The fines would be quite substantial.
'HMSOSTANDARDNobody would say that this is an unreasonable piece of legislation. I am sad that Opposition Members, whom I have got to know quite well, seek to hold up this perfectly reasonable legislation. Therefore, I beg to move, That the Question be now put.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not prepared to accept that motion at the moment.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: For a long time, I have contended in the House that private legislation is not appropriate to deal with matters such as this. The point made by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) well illustrates that. The private Act was put on the statute book with every good intention of dealing with a problem that had arisen on the island, but its drafting turned out to be defective. It is clearly the responsibility of the House to ensure that we do not produce an Act this time which is equally defective. We do not want an organiser of one of these events to be able to drive a coach and horses through the measure.
It would be much more appropriate to bring forward a Government Bill which could be carefully scrutiinised and amended. That would result in a better chance—although not a certainty—that the legislation could deal with the problem
I wonder whether the hon. Member for Isle of Wight would take us through some of the problems with these amendments. First, this Bill will apply only if the organiser believes that more than 5,000 people will turn up at an event. What would happen if two people organised two separate events in two separate fields in fairly close proximity? If 3,000 people turned up at each event——

Mr. Barry Field: That is exactly what happened when the Hell's Angels arrived on one site and the scooterists on another. The situation was fraught with danger, and we wanted to keep the two groups, apart for obvious reasons.

Mr. Bennett: How would this Bill keep them apart? Perhaps I have misread the Bill, but as long as each group can reasonably assume that not more than 5,000 people will show up, the Bill will not deal with the problem. I do not see how it will be possible to adjudicate——

Mr. Field: If the hon. Gentleman comes to the Isle of Wight, I shall he happy to show him how.

Mr. Bennett: The point of scrutinising the legislation in this House is to make sure that it will work. I would be happy to go to the Isle of Wight, but we must ensure that the problem does not arise again.
Back in 1971, a problem arose in the island, and all this time later it appears that the legislation of the time did not solve——

Mr. Field: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The original legislation helped with solving the problem, but subsequent amendments have since been shown to be defective when it came to prosecuting the organisers.

Mr. Bennett: That is the point. We need to be certain that we have got it right this time, so that the legislation catches someone who tries to get around the law next time ——

Mr. Field: The hon. Gentleman is a perceptive Member and aware that trends in society change. We cannot freeze

human nature or activities, so the Isle of Wight might have to come back for more legislation in future if confronted by acid house parties, for instance.

Mr. Bennett: I accept that, but we must be careful to make the legislation as nearly correct as possible——

Mr. Skinner: Page 5 of the Bill states:
An assembly to which this section applies is an assembly in the county in the open air at which there are reasonable grounds for believing that there are more than 5,000 people present at any time not being an assembly held—".
It is an offence if the defence cannot show that the organisers have
reasonable grounds for believing that there would be more than 5,000 people present".
Who is to decide? Someone may say, "I am sorry, judge, but I thought only about 4,000 people were going to turn up. I am sorry that there were 6,000 or 20,000." That is the effect of the Bill. I am certain that the Bill would need to come back to the House.

Mr. Bennett: I accept what my hon. Friend says. I am sure that he has also gone to meetings, hoping that a certain number of people will turn up. One is often a Little disappointed. On other occasions, a much larger number of people turn up. That is one of the problems with this legislation. The figure of 5,000 obviously denotes a big event, but it creates some difficulties.

Mr. Michael Welsh: We sympathise with the Isle of Wight and the trouble it has had with big parties. However, no city or town should suffer such trouble. If trouble is stopped in only one area, it will be exported somewhere else unless we have a Bill which applies to the whole United Kingdom. Such a Bill would be debated fully and would put an end to all trouble throughout the United Kingdom. Is that not what we wish?

Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend makes a point which I have made on several occasions. These issues should be covered by Government legislation. The sooner we get private business sorted out, the sooner we can avoid proceedings such as these.

Debate adjourned.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Debate to be resumed on Monday 13 November.

ST. GEORGE'S HILL, WEYBRIDGE, ESTATE BILL (By Order)

Order read for consideration of Lords amendments.

Hon. Members: Object.

Ordered,
That the Lords amendments be considered on Monday 13 November.

HYTHE MARINA VILLAGE (SOUTHAMPTON) WAVESCREEN BILL (By Order)

Order read for consideration of Lords amendments.

Hon. Members: Object.

Ordered,
That the Lords amendments be considered on Monday 13 November.

NEW SOUTHGATE CEMETERY AND CREMATORIUM LIMITED BILL (By Order)

Order read for consideration of Lords amendments.

Hon. Members: Object.

Ordered,
That the Lords amendments be considered on Monday 13 November.

CITY OF LONDON (SPITALFIELDS MARKET) BILL (By Order)

Order read for consideration of Lords amendments.

Hon. Members: Object.

Ordered,
That the Lords amendments be considered on Monday 13 November.

BUCKINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Ordered,
That the Bill be considered on Monday 13 November.

LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Ordered,
That the Bill be considered on Monday 13 November.

SOUTH YORKSHIRE LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Ordered,
That the Bill be considered on Monday 13 November.

UNITED MEDICAL AND DENTAL SCHOOLS BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Ordered,
That the Bill be considered on Monday 13 November.

Orders of the Day — PRISONS (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. —[Mr. Fallon].

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — STATUTE LAW REPEALS BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. —[Mr. Fallon.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — OPTICIANS BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. —[Mr. Fallon.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT AND CO-OPERATION

That the draft Inter-American Development Bank (Seventh General Increase) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 17th October, be approved.—[Mr. Fallon.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(5) (Standing Committees on European Community Documents.)

ANIMAL WELFARE

That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 7648/89 and 7654/89 relating to the protection of calves and pigs kept in intensive farming systems; and supports the Government's intention to negotiate satisfactory welfare safeguards which take account of the views of the Farm Animal Welfare Council.—[Mr. Fallon.]

Orders of the Day — STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

CUSTOMS AND EXCISE

That the Customs Duties (ECSC) (Amendment No. 5) Order 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 1610), dated 1st September 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 6th September, be approved.—[Mr. Fallon.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — HOUSE OF COMMONS (SERVICES)

Ordered,
That Mr. Frank Dobson be discharged from the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) and Dr. John Cunningham be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Fallon.]

Orders of the Day — SELECT COMMITTEE ON TELEVISING OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That Mr. Frank Dobson be discharged from the Select Committee on Televising of Proceedings of the House and Dr. John Cunningham be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Fallon.]

Orders of the Day — Multi-fibre Arrangement

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fallon.]

Mr. David Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I have proposed the Question. If the hon. Gentleman speaks he will take time out of the debate. Does he still want to raise a point or order?

Mr. Harris: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you inform the House of the position on the carry-over motions for various Bills? I have a constituency interest in the Penzance Albert Pier Extension Bill. To my knowledge, no reference was made to those Bills during the time for private business.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that the Chairman of Ways and Means will put them down again tomorrow.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: At this late hour it would not be wholly accurate to say that I am delighted to be bringing before the House the important subject of the multi-fibre arrangement. It is important for the 480,000 people who are employed in the textiles and clothing industry in this country—it is the fifth largest industrial sector. It is important for consumers—every man, woman and child has textile products. It is crucial for the textile industry worldwide, which is worth about $160 billion, and it provides opportunities for development in the poorer countries. Most of all, it provides the opportunity to explore the relationship between the interests of consumers and the maximising of economic growth worldwide and the desire for stability and the steady restructuring of industries in the developed world which are involved in the textile industry but which have a natural cost disadvantage compared with developing countries.
It is apposite that we are considering this matter now as the Uruguay round of GATT expires in 1990 within which discusions on the multi-fibre arrangement, through the EEC, will begin in July 1990 and, we hope, be concluded in July 1991. These are not easy questions and there are no simple answers on whether the MFA should be abolished and, if so, when. Perhaps we should begin with the basic premise of the general agreement on tariffs and trade, which is that multilateral trade should be as free as possible and should be impeded only by tariff barriers, and that even those should be brought down gradually. Through that and through the process of comparative advantage, wealth will be maximised because countries with particular advantages, either on a labour or a technological basis, will be concentrating production on those areas where they have the greatest expertise. As a result, wealth throughout the world will be maximised because countries will be producing the products that are most appropriate for them.
From the outset, GATT was weighted in favour of the developing countries. It allowed them tariff-free access to the developed world and it laid down that the developed world should not raise non-tariff barriers. The MFA is specifically a derogation from GATT and from its liberal,


free trade principles. To that extent, it is an anomaly to allow the developed world, in particular the textile producers, to restructure against the threat of low-cost imports from the developing world.
When the system was first introduced in 1974 it was regarded as being temporary, yet 15 years on it has been renewed three times and now covers 45 countries with 26 bilateral agreements under MFA4.
I should emphasise that the MFA is a protectionist measure that discriminates against low-cost producers in the developing world and imposes costs upon consumers throughout the world. It is the most protectionist measure in any manufacturing sector in the world, and only this October it was called by Barber Conable, the president of the World bank,
one of the most particular protectionist measures called for by the industrialised West.
In the Uruguay round, the EC and the British Government, who are signatories to GATT, have called for the phasing out of restrictions under the MFA and other restrictions on textiles and clothing not consistent with GATT rules and disciplines on a progressive basis and subject to restrictions. Even the apparel, knitting and textiles alliance agrees with the principle of ending the M FA.
Nevertheless, the abolition of the MFA is politically sensitive, as we saw on 9 December 1988 when every speaker, bar one, in a debate in the House spoke for the producers who would be affected by it. They argued that it provided relative stability in the United Kingdom's textile industry, despite the fact that employment in the industry has dropped from 700,000 to 480,000 in 20 years; it averted trade conflicts of the kind into which the United States has been tempted recently, and to a certain extent it allowed for a gradual restructuring and concentration of the industry which has invested £2 billion in the past five years, although the number of establishments in it has dropped during that period.
The arguments that hon. Members put forward in December last year were that the British textile industry needed protection from high interest rates, although they have been a relatively recent phenomenon; from high exchange rates, although between 1980 and 1987 the effective exchange rates for British textiles fell; and particularly because of unfair trade practices. For instance, there was a total ban on imports of textiles by Pakistan, high tariffs on textiles by Turkey, adding up overall to about 199 per cent. of basic value, and South Korea erected non-tariff barriers on the basis that its balance of payments was heavily in deficit. That is one of the things that can be done under the MFA, yet it had a trade surplus of $4·2 billion in 1986 and $11·4 billion in 1988.
It was argued that the MFA should be retained indefinitely to protect home industries. In the words of the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson),
we can have free trade only if we have fair trade."—[Official Report, 9 December 1988; Vol. 143, c. 567.]
To be fair, those are arguments that the Government have taken seriously and, to their credit, they have commissioned reports from Professor Silberston in 1984 and 1989, upon the latter of which they are still consulting.
Equally, it is a disgrace that the EC, which will effectively be doing the substantive negotiations on the MFA, did not commission such reports and wrote to an important part of the textile industry recently saying:
The Commission itself is not undertaking scientific studies on the effects of the MFA, because it is lacking the resources which would be necessary to carry out a comprehensive assessment.
Nevertheless, it is my contention that the MFA should be phased out as quickly as practicable—within five years rather than the seven to 10 years favoured by Professor Silberston and the 10 years-plus favoured by the industry, for the following reasons.
First, the MFA is only a finger in the dyke of more fundamental economic forces that have seen the clothing exports of developing countries' share of the British market increase from 10 per cent. in 1955 to 48 per cent. in 1982. Secondly, the rate of import penetration has increased over that period. Textile imports have increased from 8 per cent. to 48 per cent., and clothing imports from 12 per cent. to 38 per cent. Thirdly, despite the panoply of controls under the MFA, five sixths of textile imports apparently come from countries not covered by the agreement, and two thirds of those come from Europe, which accounts for no less than £1·75 billion of our £3·6 billion textiles deficit.
Silberston makes the point that the MFA masks a rather awkward truth: that Britain's textile industry was not doing very well in its home European market, having exported to that market only 15 per cent. of its turnover, compared with France's 21 per cent., West Germany's 34 per cent. and Belgium's 80 per cent.
Fourthly, the Retail Consortium has argued that quotas mean that developing countries concentrate on higher value-added, higher-priced and higher-margin products which compete directly with the British textile industry and, as a result, militate against the United Kingdom's poorer consumers, who should be helped most by the developing countries' specialising in lower-value products.
The final argument is the strongest of all: that the MFA is, in effect, a very regressive tax. According to Silberston, the British people pay £900 million a year to subsidise an industry that would otherwise be restructuring itself—as Japan's textile industry has done—or diversifying to higher value-added products. Opposition Members—none of whom is present at this time of night—argue strongly against a progressive eye test and dental charge that raises £110 million a year, while supporting and seeking to retain a regressive £900 million tax that falls mainly on the least fortunate 
Ending the MFA would, of course, lead to a loss of jobs in the short term—Professor Silberston mentions a figure of 33,000. Even if that figure were doubled, however, the amount saved in terms of consumption would be twice the average pay of each worker. There is little doubt that the additional spending power available to British consumers, and the additional opportunities for British firms to export to newly industrialised countries, would mean the creation of more jobs to compensate.
Everyone recognises that ending the MFA would have transitional effects, particularly in certain regions of the United Kingdom—the north-west, Scotland and Northern Ireland are cited by Silberston. British export opportunities, and opportunities for import substitution in the home market, would depend on a level playing field, and


on the developing countries' obeying GATT rules after the downgrading of the MFA quota system. I am sure that the Government are aware of that: the Minister will have seen the comprehensive statement made in July by the European Economic Commission's negotiating group on textiles and clothing, which mentioned a number of important respects in which GATT must be improved if the MFA is to be abolished without undue disruption of the British textile industry.
I nevertheless feel that the MFA should be gradually reduced over a five-year period, and that quotas should be progressively increased, provided that GATT is strengthened. Article 9 of GATT provides safeguards for countries which believe that imports are threatening a sector of their economy. They should be made more selective. Action should be allowed against particular countries, and it should be possible to take action more quickly. The article should be interpreted on a national rather than on a continental basis, or EEC imports, coming particularly via East Germany to West Germany, may be targeted on the British market and may disrupt our industry to a far greater extent than in other EEC countries.
The investigative powers of the textile surveillance body, or its equivalent body when the transitional period ends, should be improved to allow sampling against the state subsidies that are likely to cause disruption in the textile markets.
Settlement procedures for trading disputes should be made more effective through majority voting, not consensus.
In that way, the MFA could gradually be phased out over a five-year period and integrated into a strengthened and more comprehensive set of GATT rules. A significant restrictive trade practice, which has a bad effect on consumers, particularly poor consumers in this country, could he removed. Wealth throughout the world could be improved through greater specialisation and efficiency, to our comparative advantage. A balance could be held between consumers, retailers and producers in Britain and abroad. I am sure that the Government will wish to ensure that progress on the gradual abolition of the MFA is vigorous, responsible and speedy. I trust that the Minister will be able to give me that assurance.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. John Redwood): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) for initiating this most important debate. The only sadness for both of us is that it has to take place at this hour in the morning, owing to the problems over earlier business.
My hon. Friend has put the case against protection and for maximising growth by liberating trade extremely well. He has stressed its importance to our consumers and to developing countries. His speech will stand alongside those of other hon. Members who in previous debates have put the case for the textile industry, which is well known to Ministers. I am delighted to have his ideas on record. We are conducting consultations, having studied the Silberston report.
The textiles and clothing sector is of great significance to the United Kingdom economy and to all of us as consumers. Textiles and clothing is our fourth largest manufacturing industry, employing 9 per cent. of those

employed in manufacturing. In 1988 it had a total output of approximately £12 billion, of which over £3·6 billion was exported. As consumers, we spent in the same year some £17 billion at retail prices.
The present MFA protocol, MFA IV, expires in July 1991. Since the MFA was established in 1974 to replace earlier arrangements relating only to cotton products. the arrangements have been renewed three times. The difference this time is that the future of the MFA is not being looked at in isolation but as an integral part of the GATT Uruguay round, which is due to end in 1990. These are ambitious negotiations, in which the Community is only one of the players. With more than a year to go, not all the cards are yet on the table, but I can reaffirm the Community's objectives.
There are based on the commitment made by all GATT contracting parties in the Punta del Este declaration at the beginning of the Uruguay round
to examine the modalities for the eventual return of textiles and clothing to strengthened GATT rules".
The MFA is a major exception to GATT rules, justified as a temporary measure to allow industry in developed countries to restructure in response to orderly growth in low-cost competition.
For developing countries, better access for their textile and clothing exports is a key objective for the Uruguay round. In their view, many of the other issues in the round will be of advantage principally to developed countries. They believe that this proposal will maximise growth in their own countries. For countries at an early stage of development, textiles and clothing are one of the few manufactured products they can successfully export. Such countries would certainly argue that, if they are to achieve sustained economic growth—and hence in due course become attractive markets for our exporters—they must have the opportunity to sell the products in which they are competitive. Textiles offer them a path to prosperity.
Community views of the MFA are not just a response to pressure from developing countries, important though that is. Any effective import restriction also imposes costs on the consumer. It is clear that the complicated network of MFA quotas also distorts international trade by providing an incentive for internationally mobile industry to move to unrestricted countries or to switch to products outside quota control even where these might not otherwise be rational choices. In addition, the continued existence of such an important exception to the GATT rules tends to undermine the whole multilateral system. For this reason, the Community is committed to negotiate about phasing out the MFA on acceptable terms.
I must stress that this is a matter for the Community as a whole, and not for the United Kingdom alone. A common commercial policy was created by the treaty of Rome, and it is the Community that is a party to the NI FA and to the bilateral agreements negotiated under it with exporting countries. EC regulations implementing the arrangements have the force of law in the United Kingdom. It is also the Commission that negotiates on behalf of the Community in the GATT round, although on the basis of general policy positions agreed by the member states.
There is therefore no question of the United Kingdom going it alone. Of course, we want to play our full part in internal Community discussions. That means keeping in close touch with developments in the GATT and with the views of industry and other interested parties in the United


Kingdom. The objectives are set by the Community as a whole and, at the end of the Uruguay round, it will have to decide collectively whether they have been achieved sufficiently.
The essential issues in the GATT negotiations will be the timing of the phasing out, the method and the conditions. The Community set out its general objectives in a paper presented in July to the GATT negotiating group on textiles and clothing, which proposes that the gradual integration of textiles and clothing into GATT would proceed in parallel with the application of strengthened rules and disciplines. These ideas will need to be translated into more precise proposals.
To assist us in playing our part in more detailed consideration of the EC's negotiating position, we commissioned Professor Silberston to prepare a report on the MFA and its implications for the United Kingdom economy which was published on 19 October. We have invited comments on it.
The report runs to some 120 pages and provides a number of facts and estimates. Professor Silberston estimates that the extra competition brought about by ending MFA restrictions would result in an average fall of about 5 per cent. in retail clothing prices in the United Kingdom, leading to some increase in demand. The fall in yarn and fabric prices would be rather lower. He estimates the gain to consumers as some £980 million at 1988 prices. He has given a range of estimates of the effect on employment, while accepting that any overall estimate is bound to be crude, as there are considerable differences in the vulnerability to competition of particular sectors.
The effect on employment would be spread over a number of years, and there would be offsetting effects over time in other sectors of the economy that might benefit. We welcome further comments on these estimates, and I hope that they will be backed up by reasoned arguments. While there will always be disagreement about exact figures, every study of the MFA that I am aware of has concluded that the restrictions impose a net cost on the economy of developed countries.
Because we are awaiting other comments on the report, we will have to consider all the responses carefully before forming a detailed view. The main issues for discussion in GATT are clear. It is accepted that the integration of textiles and clothing into GATT could only be gradual and progressive. My hon. Friend agrees. He is tonight debating the exact time involved. There will have to be further debate about just how long a period this implies, in the light of our consultation findings. Timing is an issue on

which the Community has not yet adopted a precise negotiating position, so we are still in time to influence that debate.
We shall also need to consider carefully what arrangements would be appropriate for the transitional phase. A steady increase in quota growth rates is one obvious option, but there are other possible techniques and we must consider whether certain categories of product or certain kinds of exporting country should be given special treatment.
The controversial issue in the negotiations is the interpretation of the Punta del Este declaration on the strengthening of GATT rules and disciplines if the MFA is to be successfully phased out. The Community paper made clear its view that strengthened rules and disciplines included more effective safeguard measures, greater market access through the reduction of tariff and non-tariff barriers, particularly in newly industrialised economies, and the creation of fair competitive conditions in relation to unfair trade, protection of intellectual property and access to raw materials. This is an ambitious position, but these aims form part of the Community's wider objectives for the round as a whole and not just in relation to textiles. They will have to be judged against that background. A more effective GATT framework is, in our view, in the interest of all participants.
I know that there is already concern in the industry about increased imports, although not all of them are from countries covered by the MFA. I can understand the fears about job losses, even if restrictions are phased out gradually. Clearly some sectors are more vulnerable than others to competition from low-cost imports. In addition, nothing that we can negotiate in GATT will prevent taste and fashion from changing the prospects for particular businesses. Under the spur of competition, however, the industry in the United Kingdom has made considerable gains in productivity, partly as a result of investment in new technology. High-quality products hold their own in export markets as well as at home, and the United Kingdom industry must be able to respond quickly and flexibly to the demands of increasingly sophisticated consumers in the domestic market. The right balance is to work with our Community partners for greater competition and consumer choice within the framework of more effective GATT rules and disciplines.
The Government will consider what further representations to make to the EC about the handling of the negotiations once we have seen all the replies to Silberston and once we have had a chance to sift the evidence about the balance of advantage on the issues that I mentioned.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty one minutes past Two o'clock.